----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#review56 -----------------------------------------------------------
There are GPL headers missing from most of the new source files - please add them blockerbugs/controllers/api/api.py <http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment80> Why did you name the blueprint api_bp when none of the other blueprints use a '_bp' suffix? with the variable API_VERSION that can be set here, wouldn't it be better to call it api_v0 instead or just api until such a time when we have multiple API versions? blockerbugs/controllers/api/errors.py <http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment78> api/errors is missing a GPL header blockerbugs/controllers/api/iso8601.py <http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment81> why are you duplicating this code instead of pulling it in as a dependency? Isn't it the same code as https://pypi.python.org/pypi/iso8601 and https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-iso8601 blockerbugs/models/spin.py <http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment82> Is there a reason to make this change other than your sense of style? As I recall, most other model constructors do it the pre-change way testing/test_validators.py <http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment85> this bothers me a little - is 12.3 really validated as an int? testing/test_validators.py <http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment84> this should be a separate test case, not just put into one testing/test_validators.py <http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment86> empty comment testing/test_validators.py <http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment87> wouldn't this be better as test_int_list? A couple of general concerns I have about the code: - your tests are, in general, way too compact. There are way too many assertions and checks per test that make it much more difficult to diagnose errors if/when they happen. I understand that adhering blindly to a 'one assertion per test' rule is silly but I think you've taken it too far in the other direction. Additional testing/poking shouldn't be required to figure out what is failing in a test (ie, whether the optional or required elements of the dict validator are failing) - I'd like to see more explicit handling of the API version. I like having the version and I think it should stay, I just don't like hardcoding the 'v0' in all the tests without indicating that the test class is only for 'v0' - the file names shouldn't be generic if the api version they work with is specific. Overall, I think it looks good. All the stuff I'm pointing out is minor stuff - Tim Flink On July 22, 2013, 12:04 p.m., Ilgiz Islamgulov wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 22, 2013, 12:04 p.m.) > > > Review request for blockerbugs. > > > Bugs: 392 > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/392 > > > Repository: blockerbugs > > > Description > ------- > > Add endpoints: > - list bugs > - list updates > - list spins > - create spin > > > Diffs > ----- > > testing/test_validators.py PRE-CREATION > testing/test_api.py PRE-CREATION > blockerbugs/models/spin.py 99891448e78c7168d540b479ffd7ef00ce1eec1d > blockerbugs/controllers/api/validators.py PRE-CREATION > blockerbugs/controllers/api/iso8601.py PRE-CREATION > blockerbugs/controllers/api/errors.py PRE-CREATION > blockerbugs/controllers/api/api.py PRE-CREATION > blockerbugs/controllers/api/__init__.py PRE-CREATION > blockerbugs/__init__.py c0f298462670e2ca00ba63fd8e722d2babbe5760 > > Diff: http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Wrote test suites. > I've tested on my develop instance. > > > Thanks, > > Ilgiz Islamgulov > >
_______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel
