[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 |