Ian Wienand <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > With more and more plugins, etc, within our various projects, I've > seen some jobs coming in with things like > > if [ -f /path/to/hook.sh ]; then > . /path/to/hook.sh > fi > > and some similar "conditional execution" idioms. > > Clearly we don't want to go overboard and deny maintainers flexibility > in providing various parts of their jobs. However, my concern with > this sort of thing is that if these files go missing, there is high > potential for silent failure. There's nothing worse than thinking > your jobs are doing something then finding out (probably a long time > later) they are not due to a silent, unreported failure. > > My preference is to see the jobs being strict around things like > sourcing files or calling functions; thus issues like files not being > there or paths changing will then result in a loud failure. > > This is really a minor thing; certainly devstack-gate isn't free of it > and you can argue around how jobs would fail. My thought is just to > include this sort of "failure hardening" as part of the general > reviewing Zeitgeist.
I know that sometimes this is needed to accommodate changes between branches or for a short time while adding new functionality. Perhaps if that's necessary, we can require it come with a comment saying "Remove after ..." to reduce the long-term risk? -Jim _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
