Closed Bug 843533 Opened 12 years ago Closed 12 years ago

add support for tp5o to talos

Categories

(Testing :: Talos, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: jmaher, Assigned: jmaher)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 2 obsolete files)

seriously considering the option of a reduced set of pages for tp5, I want to create tp5o as a staging ground for this experiment, and eventually being a final solution.
we need to ensure we don't post these results to graph server, but datazilla is fine.
Assignee: nobody → jmaher
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #716536 - Flags: review?(jhammel)
Blocks: 843622
What does the 'o' stand for? :-)
o = n++
Ah :-)
fixed some test definitions and verified this works great on try server (using another hack)
Attachment #716536 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #716536 - Flags: review?(jhammel)
Attachment #717053 - Flags: review?(jhammel)
(In reply to Ed Morley [:edmorley UTC+0] from comment #4) > Ah :-) Yeah ....the whole test suite name carrying meaning is a bit problematic in the existing system.
Comment on attachment 717053 [details] [diff] [review] add support for tp5o into talos harness (1.1) + if 'tp5o' in result: + return Why? +class tp5o(tp): Is it necessary to repeat all the things? Also, the docstring should probably be updated with a description of tp5o vs just copying the tp5 docstring.
we can't push tp5o results to graph server, otherwise we will have to deploy new sql logic and bits and there could be reported regressions although this is an experimental target at the moment. Good call on the pointless copying of tp5n stuff.
Comment on attachment 717053 [details] [diff] [review] add support for tp5o into talos harness (1.1) + if 'tp5o' in result: + return There should be a comment here, apropos comment 7 and comment 8 probably referencing this bug number. +class tp5o(tp): + """ Please fix the docstring and please only copy what is intended to be copied, as per comment 7 and comment 8
Attachment #717053 - Flags: review?(jhammel) → review-
thanks for the review, this should address your concerns!
Attachment #717053 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #718581 - Flags: review?(jhammel)
Attachment #718581 - Flags: review?(jhammel) → review+
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: