agreed, there's not much else sensible we can do.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:02 AM, K.D. Lucas <[email protected]> wrote: > So there are some cases when the command is not found, which will return > with exit code of 127, and other cases when runlevel can't find > /var/run/utmp, which returns an exit code of 1. > If there is an error with runlevel then we're not going to get the needed > info out, so I think returning False is ok here, as it will let AutoTest > continue on it's merry way. > Kelly > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 8:26 AM, John Admanski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If the expected failure mode is a lack of runlevel, it should probably be >> explicitly checking for the command failing with exit code 127 instead of >> just swallowing all errors. >> Also, it would be nice if there was some alternate method of checking for >> "is the machine shutting down", but maybe that's just not possible. >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:16 AM, K.D. Lucas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> My team is working with an operating system that doesn't support >>> runlevel, so I'd like to wrap that in a try block. >>> >>> -- >>> K.D. Lucas >>> [email protected] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Autotest mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest >>> >> > > > > -- > K.D. Lucas > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Autotest mailing list > [email protected] > http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest > > _______________________________________________ Autotest mailing list [email protected] http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest
