Okay, but what about just catching AutoservRunError so that only runlevel execution failures are caught?
-- john On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Martin Bligh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
