On 09/16/10 10:45 AM, [email protected] wrote: > On 09/15/10 12:22 PM, jean.mccormack wrote: >> I was just talking with Ginnie about the interface between the >> checkpoints and their DOC software nodes. The design specifies that the >> checkpoint name must be the same as the software node name that contains >> it's input. Unfortunately, this interface is subject to user error and >> right now that mistake doesn't get discovered until we're actually >> executing the checkpoint which is annoying and not very user friendly. >> It would be nice to move this check to prior to checkpoint execution >> however, not all checkpoints get input from a DOC software node. >> >> So in our discussion we came up with a potential solution that I wanted >> to pass by people. >> >> - Part of the requirement for checkpoint class would be the inclusion of >> an attribute indicating whether or not it gets input from a DOC software >> node and should be validated. I'll call that attribute >> validate_software_name. >> >> - The engine currently generates a list of checkpoints to be executed. >> Prior to the call to execute_checkpoints the engine would perform a >> check that would cycle through all the checkpoints on the execution list >> and if validate_software_name is True would check to make sure the DOC >> has a software node with the same name as the checkpoint. >> >> - If there is not a match, print out a really nice error message >> indicating what mistake the user has made and stop execution. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Jean >> _______________________________________________ >> caiman-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss > > > > Hey Jean, > > What you describe sounds viable to me but I would question if it might > be a workaround for a design issue: > >> The design specifies that the checkpoint name must be the same as the >> software node name that contains it's input. > > > Perhaps this could be solved by reevaluating that design point. Maybe > it's not possible but if it could be fixed so the checkpoint name does > not need to matches the software node name then extra code to validate > it wouldn't be needed. > > Just what initially struck me as something that should be considered. I > understand it may not be easily possible.
Hi Joe, We did some discussion on the checkpoint and the associated s/w node before Sarah left, but it still seemed to be that using the name was the best solution to what we wanted. Unfortunately that requires some level of validation, so, in the spirit of catching the error early in the install cycle, it means we need to look at this kind of validation. Thanks, Darren. _______________________________________________ caiman-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
