On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:52:50PM -0500, Matthew Treinish wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:15:49PM +0100, jordan pittier wrote: > > Hey, > > I am not a Nova developer but I still have an opinion. > > > > >Using boolean assertions > > I like what you propose. We should use and enforce the assert* that best > > matches the intention. It's about semantic and the more precise we are, the > > better. > > > > >Using same order of arguments in equality assertions > > Why not. But I don't know how we can write a Hacking rule for this. So you > > may fix all the occurrences for this now, but it might get back in the > > future.
Let write this rules in HACKING.rst, developers and reviewers are expected to read it. > Ok I'll bite, besides the enforceability issue which you pointed out, it just > doesn't make any sense, you're asserting 2 things are equal: (A == B) == (B > == A) > and I honestly feel that it goes beyond nitpicking because of that. > > It's also a fallacy that there will always be an observed value and an > expected value. For example: > > self.assertEqual(method_a(), method_b()) > > Which one is observed and which one is expected? I think this proposal is just > reading into the parameter names a bit too much. Let developer to know about what values was expected when he broke a test during his development without looking into the testcase code. Operators can also want to know about what values was expected/observed without reading the code when executing tests. > > > > >Using LOG.warn instead of LOG.warning > > I am -1 on this. The part that comes after LOG. (LOG.warning, LOG.error, > > LOG.debug, etc) is the log level, it's not a verb. In syslog, the > > well-known log level is "warning" so the correct method to use here is, > > imo, log.warning(). Well I have choiced 'warn' because there is less changes but I do not have any preference, just want something clear from Nova. > > Have you concidered submitting this hacking rules to the hacking project > > here : https://github.com/openstack-dev/hacking ? I am sure these new rules > > makes sense on other openstack projects. Make them accepted by Nova community first before to think about other projects ;) > > Jordan > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui" <sahid.ferdja...@redhat.com> > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > <email@example.com> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 5:57:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Proposal new hacking rules > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 02:00:11PM -0800, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui < > > > sahid.ferdja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > This is something we can call nitpiking or low priority. > > > > > > > > > > This all seems like nitpicking for very little value. I think there are > > > better things we can be focusing on instead of thinking of new ways to nit > > > pick. So I am -1 on all of these. > > > > Yes as written this is low priority but something necessary for a > > project like Nova it is. > > > > Considered that I feel sad to take your time. Can I suggest you to > > take no notice of this and let's others developers working on Nova too > > do this job ? > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev