Well, I don't think it's a big deal. I didn't think there was other code doing ### type stuff, I wonder if that's just a holdover from before we added the logging priorities. In general I'd prefer to avoid this type of visibility escalation but if this is consistent with the local code it's alright.
-- John On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Darin Petkov <[email protected]> wrote: > With the ### I followed what the code was doing on success or failure > anyway -- just scroll down to the end of the original source file. I'm not > sure I agree with ### either but consistency is good. > > Also, without this logging you don't see any error our build environment. > It seems that the way this is currently implemented/used, > client/bin/autotest would simply catch the exception and silently exit with > an error code of 1. So you don't see anything. Add to that that our build > system is _very_ noisy anyway. > > So, adding more noise in this case seemed to make sense... > > Darin > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:33 AM, John Admanski <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I'm not sure I really agree with the ### wrapped around the logging >> message. I'm sure it makes it easier to spot this particular error, but >> presumably the exception will be noisy enough to make this visible anyway? >> >> -- John >> >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Darin Petkov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Without this change there was no indication if the test name pattern >>> matched any tests or not. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
