API for check
robert.collins at canonical.com
Mon May 11 02:12:16 BST 2009
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 11:09 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> 2009/5/8 Robert Collins <robert.collins at canonical.com>:
> > So, to get check reporting all errors, we need to stop raising
> > BzrCheckError in bzr check; rather we need to accumulate errors and
> > report them.
> > I'm thinking of just adding a 'was_ok' attribute to the Check*Result
> > objects; programmers can then use that for flow control if desired.
> I'd maybe even make it a method, if it's going to be a derived value
> from whether there were errors or not. But that's kind of a small
> To me it seems like the bigger question is whether it's going to just
> return a result at the end, or whether there should maybe be a
> reporter that's updated as it goes along, which would let it take
> charge of reporting results to the user, and perhaps in future doing
> some kind of interaction with them (like, "fix/ignore/abort"??)
Thats certainly possible; I'm mainly looking at tweaks to the current
api: my goal in this iteration is speed.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090511/64314e4d/attachment.pgp
More information about the bazaar