On 06/13/2016 10:15 AM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
On 06/10/2016 06:31 PM, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
On 06/08/2016 02:06 PM, Florence Blanc-Renaud wrote:
On 06/08/2016 10:07 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 7.6.2016 15:11, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

Thank you for your patch. As the thin-client patches were pushed in the
meantime, the patch won't apply. Could you please send a rebased version?

Also, I have a few comments to the patch:

1) I think that the commit message should be rather a brief conclusion to the
changes made in the commit. This could help for faster orientation in the
changes that were made to a certain part of code should you be searching for a
bug introduced by a commit. Should some more info be required, it can be added
to the ticket. Could you therefore shorten the commit message?
(My personal opinion, no golden standard.)

Honestly I disagree with Standa. Yes, the commit message seems to be a bit
long but *tickets* are not the best place to put *technical* information into.

Tickets are planning tool but keep in mind that Trac may/will vanish one day
and all we will have will be (Git?) repo.

I would recommend putting the comment about expected input format into code
comments somewhere around batch command definition.

This would reduce commit message (roughly, the text needs to be adapted) to
part starting 'The code did not check the format of ' ... which is perfectly
reasonable description of the change.

Petr^2 Spacek

2) Please do not add the tickets to comments in the code. You can use git
blame -L or git log -L to see in which commits were the changes introduced to
a certain part of a file, these commits should include the ticket number if
more info is needed.


On 05/27/2016 03:53 PM, Florence Blanc-Renaud wrote:
Hi all,

the following patch checks the format of parameters passed to a method
called through the batch command. I picked the ConversionError for invalid
parameters format but this choice can be discussed if you have better

Florence Blanc-Renaud
Identity Management Team, Red Hat


please find an updated patch version with a less verbose commit msg. I also
removed the reference to ticket # in the code.



Thank you for your updated patch. I have just one small issue that maybe exceeds
the scope of this ticket. If the check for dictionary instance in list:

+            if not isinstance(arg, dict):
+                raise errors.ConversionError(
+                    name='methods',
+                    error=_(u'must contain dict objects'))

fails at a further member of the list, by raising an exception, you will lose
information about execution of all the previous commands but these were already
executed. This hasn't seem to be an issue until now so I wonder if it is a
problem or not.
Right, this is something that we will need to address but not in scope
of this ticket and probably not 4.4 release.

So far, batch commands have only been utilized in the WebUI so I am adding Petr
for opinions on how to handle this properly so that WebUI could react to it
should it ever happen (although AFAIK this should never happen for batch
commands called from the UI).
Web UI doesn't care because it sends it correctly :) The bug is trying
to use batch command while talking directly to API - e.g. because of
performance reasons.

Thank you for the explanation. ACK, then.

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to