Jason Tackaberry wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 16:37 +0100, Duncan Webb wrote:
>> Log:
>> Put back the 17 calls, some of the functions return tuples and others don't
>
> I don't see why this is a problem. It's just more abstraction you want
> to add to _rpc_wait. Another argument that defines the default return
> value if the inprogress is None:
It's not that that is the problem, it is the return values from the
wait, sometimes it is just the result and sometime a tuple.
First, I want to fix the outstanding bug that Justin is having a problem
and the other outstanding bugs without having to test everything again.
It is quite/very time consuming testing the recordserver.
> def _rpc_wait(self, rpc_name, default, *args):
> inprogress = self._recordserver_rpc(rpc_name, *args)
> if inprogress is None:
> return default
> result = inprogress.wait()
> _debug_('%s.result=%r' % (rpc_name, result), 1)
> return result
>
>
>> + inprogress = self._recordserver_rpc('ping')
>> + if inprogress is None:
>> return False
>> + inprogress.wait()
>> + result = inprogress.get_result()
>> + _debug_('pingNow.result=%r' % (result,), 1)
>> return result
>
> All this becomes:
>
> return self._rpc_wait('ping', False)
>
>> + inprogress = self._recordserver_rpc('findNextProgram', isrecording)
>> + if inprogress is None:
>> + return None
>> + inprogress.wait()
>> + result = inprogress.get_result()
>> + _debug_('findNextProgramNow.result=%r' % (result,), 1)
>> + return result
>
> Becomes:
>
> return self._rpc_wait('findNextProgram', None, isrecording)
>
>> + inprogress = self._recordserver_rpc('getScheduledRecordings')
>> + if inprogress is None:
>> + return (None, self.recordserverdown)
>> + inprogress.wait()
>> + result = inprogress.get_result()
>> + _debug_('getScheduledRecordingsNow.result=%r' % (result,), 1)
>> + return (True, result)
>
> Becomes:
>
> return self._rpc_wait('getScheduledRecordings', (None,
> self.recordserverdown))
>
> Etc.
This is a nice solution, but misses:
return (True, result)
return result
It's on my to do list to do this correctly, basically I could have two
methods one for the tuples and one for the objects.
Cheers,
Duncan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Freevo-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-devel
