Closed
Bug 656704
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
read_callback is defined but never used
Categories
(Testing Graveyard :: Mozmill, defect)
Testing Graveyard
Mozmill
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: k0scist, Assigned: piotr.repetowski)
Details
(Whiteboard: [mentor=whimboo][lang=py][good first bug])
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
|
613 bytes,
patch
|
whimboo
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
https://github.com/mozautomation/mozmill/blob/master/jsbridge/jsbridge/network.py#L95
This is not refered to anywhere inside the mozmill codebase. Nor is
it part of asyncore.dispatcher or sockets. It should be removed ABICT.
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
The updated location is at:
https://github.com/mozilla/mozmill/blob/master/jsbridge/jsbridge/network.py#L67
Whiteboard: [mentor=whimboo][lang=py][good first bug]
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•12 years ago
|
||
Hi, I would like to work on this issue. I cloned git repository and found read_callback declaration - I can remove that line. What is the next step?
Best regards
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
Thanks Piotr! For the next steps please have a look here:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Auto-tools/Projects/MozBase#Working_on_Mozbase_and_Contributing_Patches
You will have to attach your patch to the bug and ask for review from Jeff or myself.
Assignee: nobody → piotr.repetowski
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
| Reporter | ||
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
This is a mozmill bug, not a mozbase bug, so https://wiki.mozilla.org/Auto-tools/Projects/Mozmill is probably the place to look
| Assignee | ||
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
Attachment #681250 -
Flags: review?(hskupin)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
Thank you for the information. I have attached a patch. Henrik, can you review my changes?
Comment 7•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 681250 [details] [diff] [review]
Remove read_callback patch
Review of attachment 681250 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
::: jsbridge/jsbridge/network.py
@@ -62,4 @@
> self.data = self.read_all()
> self.process_read(self.data)
>
> - read_callback = lambda self, data: None
You should not remove data because that can break handle_read(). But if we do it, we probably only have to update the above mentioned method.
Jeff, can I get your feedback on?
Attachment #681250 -
Flags: review?(hskupin)
Attachment #681250 -
Flags: review-
Attachment #681250 -
Flags: feedback?(jhammel)
| Reporter | ||
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 681250 [details] [diff] [review]
Remove read_callback patch
Damned if I know. If it is needed and/or part of the telnet API is overriding should probably be documented. Also, it should probably be an actual function instead of a lambda. I have no idea, in fact, if it is needed or what the behaviour of deleting is.
Attachment #681250 -
Flags: feedback?(jhammel)
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
I haven't found any instance of data in asyncore.dispatcher. So I assume it a property we create on our Telnet class.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 10•12 years ago
|
||
Henrik I searched the mozmill and the asyncore.dispatcher code and I did not find the use of the read_callback.
Can you give me some tips what to do next? I want to help but at the moment my knowledge is not enough.
Comment 11•12 years ago
|
||
We do not question the read_callback but the data property followed after the colon in the same line:
> - read_callback = lambda self, data: None
You are removing that too but it's been used in handle_read(). It's getting written there before it's read out but for safety we should be really sure before removing `data`. If we do that we should most likely rename self.data in handle_read() to `data`.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 12•12 years ago
|
||
Thanks for the explanation. I have modified 'data' in handle_read(). Now 'data' is a local variable not a class member. You are right previous approach wasn't safe.
Henrik, correct me if I am wrong. In my first patch I removed 'data' - method argument. That shouldn't break handle_read().
Attachment #681250 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #682241 -
Flags: review?(hskupin)
Comment 13•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 682241 [details] [diff] [review]
Remove read_callback, make handle_read safer patch
Review of attachment 682241 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I think that looks fine now. Thank you for the patch! If you are interested in fixing some more please let me know or join us in the #automation or #ateam channel on IRC.
Attachment #682241 -
Flags: review?(hskupin) → review+
Comment 14•12 years ago
|
||
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 15•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Henrik Skupin (:whimboo) from comment #11)
> We do not question the read_callback but the data property followed after
> the colon in the same line:
>
> > - read_callback = lambda self, data: None
>
> You are removing that too but it's been used in handle_read(). It's getting
> written there before it's read out but for safety we should be really sure
> before removing `data`. If we do that we should most likely rename self.data
> in handle_read() to `data`.
Sorry, I know this bug is closed, but I don't think there's a data property defined on that line. data is an argument to the lambda function (as piotr mentioned in comment 12) - i.e. a local variable instead of a class property. It should be equivalent to:
read_callback = lambda (self, data): None
or
def read_callback(self, data): return None
Updated•9 years ago
|
Product: Testing → Testing Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•