Thanks Brock: I made a few mods here to the install code even though we are not currently using it to take the tuple and handle the exception_caught gracefully.
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jmr/um_3981__3998_3950_v3_Oct16/ JR Brock Pytlik wrote: > LGTM. > > Brock > > jmr wrote: >> Brock, thanks for taking a look. Comments below: >> >> JR >> >> Brock Pytlik wrote: >> >>> updatemanager.py >>> Line 1129: Please don't just bump the version without making sure >>> the code works with the bumped version. The reason we have API >>> versioning is so that we fail early if the API is changed >>> incompatibly rather than waiting till we happen to travel down the >>> changed code path. In this case, plan_install now returns a tuple, >>> not a boolean. As far as I can tell, this line hasn't been updated >>> to accept the new return value. >>> >> We only have Update All exposed and are not showing Install Updates >> to the user, so this was not tested. I did bump the version and test >> the Update All functionality which worked fine. I will make the >> change here and test the Install Update using a debug mode switch to >> turn this back on. >> >> What should I do on partial success of plan_install? Is it safe to >> continue? Is it just a refresh that could have failed? We are not >> doing a catalog refresh when the UM is launched from the notification >> panel, as one has already been done externally for the notification >> to be raised. >> > If you're not refreshing the catalog there, then there's no sense of > partial success. The only way, currently, to get into an ambiguous > state is if catalog refresh failed for one or more authorities. >>> I'm also unclear as to the purpose of __get_api_obj. If the api >>> object isn't created on first trial, why would it succeed after that? >>> >> It would not. I wrapped this as we can fetch the api object in a few >> places now, depending on the code path. Previously I had done the api >> fetch up front while getting the updates list, but then when I failed >> with the version exception I could not output the error messages to >> the details pane. Hence the change. >> >> > Ok >>> I'll give more feedback in a bit when I get back from a meeting. >>> >>> Brock >>> >>> jmr wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Simple patch: >>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jmr/um_3981__3998_3950_v2_Oct16 >>>> >>>> Bumping API version to 1. UM currently failing in the gate as the >>>> underlying API has bumped the version and the call to: >>>> >>>> api.ImageInterface(...CLIENT_API_VERSION...) with version 0 >>>> >>>> Throws a version mismatch exception. Also changed how this error >>>> was reported in the Details pane. >>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3998 >>>> >>>> Range of minor UI changes to conform to UI Spec. >>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3981 >>>> >>>> Change Copyright file to short version: >>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3950 >>>> And removed SUNWipkg-um.import - David Comay told us it's no longer >>>> needed. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> JR >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> pkg-discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pkg-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
