|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH OSSTEST v2 1/3] cs-adjust-flight: Add job-status to report job stats
Ian Campbell writes ("[PATCH OSSTEST v2 1/3] cs-adjust-flight: Add job-status
to report job stats"):
> Since this new op is not a change adjust the doc comment accordingly.
Good idea. (I have already introduced another op which is not a
change: jobs-list.)
> While there add a doc string for the undocumented "branch" subcommand
> of cs-adjust-flight.
Clearly that should have been called branch-set. Oh well. (Feel free
to rename it if you feel like it. I would do so in my tree but
conflicts.)
> +sub change__job_status {
> + die unless @changes >= 1;
> + my $jobs = shift @changes;
> +
> + my $q = $dbh_tests->prepare(<<END);
> + SELECT status
> + FROM jobs
> + WHERE flight = ? AND job = ?
> +END
> + for_jobs($dstflight, $jobs, sub {
> + my ($job) = @_;
> + $q->execute($dstflight, $job);
> + my ($s) = $q->fetchrow_array();
> + print "$job $s\n";
or die $!;
> + });
> +}
This output format is awkward, isn't it ?
Would it be too horrible to omit `$job ' if the spec was a literal and
can therefore only match one item ? You can test that with something like
print "$job " or die $! if defined spec_re($jobs);
> + case "$status" in
> + $job\ *) echo ${status#$job };;
If you decide to keep `$job ' in the output, should read:
+ "$job"\ *) echo ${status#$job };;
since otherwise wildcards in $job would be treated as an attempt to do
glob matching.
Or, better
+ "$job "*) echo ${status#$job };;
which is a better idiom.
> + *)
> + echo >&2 "ERROR: $status"
> + exit 1
Do we not have `fail' in scope ? Also TBH I'm not sure you need to be
this careful anyway...
> + if [ $# -ne 1 ] ; then
> + echo "get-job-status: Need job" >&2
> + exit 1
`fail' again ?
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |