Brock Pytlik wrote: > I understand all that. However, the gate tip throws an exception during > plan_creation, and Bart's wad changes that behavior. I want to > understand why that was changed, as I think I have with the issue of > error = 1 not being set in the except block when something is added to > illegal_fmri. I don't object to the change to check the return value. I > do want to make sure we understand why test suite behavior is changing > when it's not expected to.
I can't comment on the error = 1 part because I don't quite follow everything being changed here. However, it seems wrong to me that *any* consumer of the api would ignore the return value of plan_install(), etc. if those are normally supposed to be check given that plan_execute() doesn't check for nothingtodo() at the beginning. > That means this can only blow up in the event that it's called with > packages that are already up to date or cannot be installed. My personal > belief is that for this testing setting, those tests shouldn't use > _do_install and should instead do plan_install manually and explicitly > check the nothingtodo flag in the imageplan. So, my slight preference > would be for undoing all the changes in this module. I don't feel that > strongly about it, so if others want to make the change on lines > 152-154, I won't object. I see both sides of this and I'm not certain which is the right answer. One change I do think is missing here is that plan_execute() should either return if nothingtodo() or have an assert not nothingtodo(). It seems wrong that plan_execute() would blithely go ahead and execute if there is nothingtodo(). Cheers, -- Shawn Walker _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
