Hi,
On Dienstag, 26. Februar 2013, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> I'm primarily concerned about reimplementing a bad piece of code (the
> second half of dwke that creates the .tpl files) in order to build a new
> feature on top of it. The perfectionist in me would like to fix things
> properly first.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>
> In branch report-problem_integration you have
> 4db22544 "piuparts-report - add known Problems class list to Section."
>
> That should be dropped, ...
This is where we have been talking past each other for the last week.
That patch is n
On 2013-02-25 20:24, Dave Steele wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>> In general I think we should allow the flexibility to have a per-section
>> known-problems-directory setting, so each report Section should generate
>> its own problem list and not get a global on
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> In general I think we should allow the flexibility to have a per-section
> known-problems-directory setting, so each report Section should generate
> its own problem list and not get a global one passed
>
>
OK, but out of scope of the pa
another random bit I just stumbled upon:
- if (state == "failed-testing" and template[-9:] != "issue.tpl") \
- or (state == "successfully-tested" and template[-9:] ==
"issue.tpl"):
+ if (state == "failed-testing" and problem.short_name[-5:] !=
"issue") \
+
Hi,
On Samstag, 23. Februar 2013, Dave Steele wrote:
> Ok. It would have been easier for me if this had been established
> before you asked for my rebase.
I believe Andreas should be "done" (with his current batch) soon.
cheers,
Holger
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> extra bonus points if you could tell how many commits it are in
> each branch, due to rebase its rather easy for me to find out, but becoming
> this told would be even better ;)
As I have been keeping up with the changes in develop this wee
Hi Dave,
On Samstag, 23. Februar 2013, Dave Steele wrote:
> I've reworked based on Andreas' issues related to
> detect_well_known_errors and rdeps.
thanks! (extra bonus points if you could tell how many commits it are in each
branch, due to rebase its rather easy for me to find out, but becomin
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 2013-02-22 01:58, Dave Steele wrote:
>> Concerning what is currently in Holger's queue:
>>
I've reworked based on Andreas' issues related to
detect_well_known_errors and rdeps. Comments related to piupartslib
and piuparts-reports I've
On 2013-02-21 16:35, Dave Steele wrote:
> The MULTILINE search is pure optimization - it can be remove with no
> change to the results. DOTALL is off to match grep.
OK, I didn't realize that the outer search is just "for optimization".
> There simply aren't enough failure cases (even in 62 sectio
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>
> +if self.inc_re.search( logbody, re.MULTILINE ):
> +for line in logbody.splitlines():
> +if self.inc_re.search( line ):
> +if self.exc_re == None \
> +
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>
> this work looks really promising and I'm curious to try it some day on
> my instance.
>
> But as I wrote before there is no need to reimplement the .tpl
> generation in python. Instead these intermediate files should go away
> and the ht
+if self.inc_re.search( logbody, re.MULTILINE ):
+for line in logbody.splitlines():
+if self.inc_re.search( line ):
+if self.exc_re == None \
+ or not self.exc_re.search(line):
+
[ Hint: While replying to the BTS, delete the [Piuparts-devel] marker
from the subject as well as any duplicate bug numbers. ]
On 2013-02-21 03:09, Dave Steele wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Dave Steele wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> the
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Dave Steele wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> ...
>>
>> these are quite some different changes, can you please isolate the commits
>> for
>> "Sort known issues by reverse dependency count" and rebase them onto current
>> develop?!
>
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
...
>
> these are quite some different changes, can you please isolate the commits for
> "Sort known issues by reverse dependency count" and rebase them onto current
> develop?!
The new serial branches sort-issues-by-rdep and
sort-issues-by-rd
Hi Dave,
On Sonntag, 27. Januar 2013, Dave Steele wrote:
> The rest of my proposed changes for known problem handling are pushed,
> for review.
> A rebase is needed before merging. I will do this at your request.
>
>
> The following serial branch heads are involved:
>
> well-known - I've added
The rest of my proposed changes for known problem handling are pushed,
for review.
A rebase is needed before merging. I will do this at your request.
The following serial branch heads are involved:
well-known - I've added tolerance for missing files and packages, and
added PTS links
fast-proble
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
...
>
> What I'd like to see is (in probable order of implementation)
> * piuparts-report "discovering" all existing known problem descriptions
> instead of hardcoding them
> - need to add ordering information somehow, perhaps by adding a
Hi,
thinking about this again, there are currently two tasks performed by
detect_well_known_errors:
1. generating .kpr files
2. generating .tpl files
(1) is the really time comsuming part and needs to be run independently
from piuparts-report from time to time (with the recheck options ...),
so
Hi,
On Samstag, 19. Januar 2013, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Without having looked at the code yet, I like the idea
:-)
same here :)
> Now that you have access to the package DB, can you
add a PTS link for
> each failing package? These need to be src based ...
I'd prefer this as well...
chee
On 2013-01-20 04:02, Dave Steele wrote:
> Yes, but it would involve duplicating a bit of code from
> piuparts-report. What are you thinking, replace e.g.
> pass/python-support_1.0.15.log with pass/python-support_1.0.15, and
> link to the source page instead of the log?
I just want to extend the c
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 2013-01-19 22:06, Dave Steele wrote:
...
>
> Now that you have access to the package DB, can you add a PTS link for
> each failing package? These need to be src based ...
>
Yes, but it would involve duplicating a bit of code from
piupa
On 2013-01-19 22:06, Dave Steele wrote:
> The "well-known" git branch implements a version of
> detect_well_known_errors to accomplish this. The script is ported from
> bash to python, to take advantage of the rdep capability of
> piupartsdb. It was developed alongside the bash script to support
>
Package: piuparts
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
thanks
Packages with high reverse dependency counts can cause "known problem"
issue lists to balloon. Providing rdep visibility in the issue report
can highlight these problems, making it much easier to pare the list
down.
The "well-known" git bran
25 matches
Mail list logo
