"Mark J. Nelson" <Mark.J.Nelson at Sun.COM> writes: > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~mjnelson/webrev.456.457/ > > I updated the rtichk.py test, too; a couple of the existing tests seemed > (to me) to be incorrect. For the off-SWAN check, I instrumented > DbLookups.py to always throw RtiOffSwan, and called rti with multiple > bugids. > > For the consolidation specified but gate path not specified, I added > another test to rtichk.py. If those conditions provide insufficient > scoping, such that multiple lines are returned, then this will still fail > with invalid output.
Could you move the RTI tests into tooltest? I think I left a stub there, that removes itself if not onSWAN(), filling that out (leaving the onSWAN bit), should be easy, I think? I held off because I wouldn't be able to run them, but they all need to be in the same place. Rti.py:94 Does that sit nicely with cdm, etc? And not over-report that as an error? (I have vague memory that one of the problems johnlev fixed here was regarding us doing too much in that area, but I'm no longer certain) DbLookups.py:339 We don't necessarily use webrticli, in fact, in the ideal common case it won't run at all. This is the bit we talked about briefly on IRC. I'm no longer sure *why* it attempts a direct connection and only falls back upon webrticli. But if we keep doing that, it'd probably be best to state such. DbLookups.py:346 (not part of your change, exactly) Why in the world do we default these keyword args to "NULL" rather than None? It's claimed that this is how webrti wants us to do it, but that's not what the code actually does, the code in both paths then goes != "NULL", which seems to suggest we're using "NULL" as a surrogate for None for seemingly no reason. -- Rich
