> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Kamil Paral < kpa...@redhat.com > wrote:
> > > This is what I meant - keeping item as is, but being able to pass another
> > > structure to the formula, which can then be used from it. I'd still like
> > > to
> > > keep the item to a single string, so it can be
On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 00:29 +0100, Josef Skladanka wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be great if we had a brand new project which would be the
> > ideal place to represent such conventions, so the bit of taskotron
> >
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > I mentioned this in IRC but why not have a bit of both and allow input
> > as either a file or on the CLI. I don't think that json would be too
> > bad to type on the command line as an option for when you're running
> >
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Tim Flink wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:26:30 -0500 (EST)
> Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> I think another question is whether we want to keep assuming that the
> *user supplies the item* that is used as a UID in resultsdb. As you
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> This is what I meant - keeping item as is, but being able to pass another
> structure to the formula, which can then be used from it. I'd still like to
> keep the item to a single string, so it can be queried easily in the
>
On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 08:11 -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
> Would it make more sense to just pass in the dict and have semi-coded
> conventions for reporting to resultsdb based on the item_type which
> could be set during the task instead of requiring that to be known
> before task execution time?
Chaps,
we were discussing this many times in the past, and as with the
type-restriction, I think this is the right time to get this done, actually.
It sure ties to the fact, that I'm trying to put together
Taskotron-continuously-testing-Taskotron together - the idea here being
that on each