Shawn Walker wrote:
> >imageplan.py:
> > - line 1103: shouldn't we do the same here as we're now doing for
> > pkg.actions.ActionErrors?
>
> Are you saying this should be an "except BaseException, e:" and then
> ensure we re-raise the original?
I'm not sure why you'd need to name the exception. Wouldn't
except:
self.state = EXECUTED_ERROR
try:
self.__actuators.exec_fail_actuators(self.image)
finally:
raise
do the trick?
> >t_action.py:
> >
> > - Probably should add a test explicitly for a non-octal mode.
>
> As in "-rwxr-xr-x" or the like? Do we want to allow for and convert
> that syntax?
Sorry, I mean something like 0898 or 999.
> >Seems like there's a good deal of copied code between t_pkg_info.py,
> >t_pkg_install.py, and t_pkg_api_install.py. Can that be cleaned up?
>
> At the moment, I can't think of a good place for it to live. It's
> specific to this particular testing scenario, so it didn't seem right
> to put it into pkg5unittest.py.
>
> The only thing that comes to mind at the moment is adding a new test
> suite that tests the bad package scenario for all of these operations
> instead of doing it in each operation's test suite. I'm open to
> suggestions...
The only thing that came to mind was to put some routines in
pkg5unittest.py that allowed you to rewrite manifests in specific ways.
Note that when we get manifest signing, though, all this code won't work
any longer. Which makes for an even better reason to consolidate. That
said, I wouldn't spend too much time on it right now.
Thanks,
Danek
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
