Hello everybody,
I'm thinking about changing current behavior in evaluating recipes with more than one command sequence.
Currently if one of the command sequence fails the whole recipe is aborted and the rest of the command sequences won't be executed.
Imagine you have the recipe split into several logical parts and you'd like to see if any of them pass. Currently you have to rely on all of them to pass.
I propose to add 'dont_stop' or 'continue_on_fail' option to command_sequence node. If it's set the following command sequence get's executed.
e.g. <command_sequence continue_on_fail="yes"> <command simple_test> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_independent_on_previous_fail> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_if_previous_pass> </command_sequence>
Feel free to share your ideas!
-Jan
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:56PM CEST, jtluka@redhat.com wrote:
Hello everybody,
I'm thinking about changing current behavior in evaluating recipes with more than one command sequence.
Currently if one of the command sequence fails the whole recipe is aborted and the rest of the command sequences won't be executed.
Imagine you have the recipe split into several logical parts and you'd like to see if any of them pass. Currently you have to rely on all of them to pass.
I propose to add 'dont_stop' or 'continue_on_fail' option to command_sequence node. If it's set the following command sequence get's executed.
I think we were talking about this already in past.
I think that it probably makes sense. How about "notfail" as default and if user wants to specify some crucial sequence, add attribute "quit_on_fail" ?
Jiri
e.g.
<command_sequence continue_on_fail="yes"> <command simple_test> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_independent_on_previous_fail> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_if_previous_pass> </command_sequence>
Feel free to share your ideas!
-Jan _______________________________________________ LNST-developers mailing list LNST-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lnst-developers
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:26:13PM CEST, jpirko@redhat.com wrote:
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:56PM CEST, jtluka@redhat.com wrote:
Hello everybody,
I'm thinking about changing current behavior in evaluating recipes with more than one command sequence.
Currently if one of the command sequence fails the whole recipe is aborted and the rest of the command sequences won't be executed.
Imagine you have the recipe split into several logical parts and you'd like to see if any of them pass. Currently you have to rely on all of them to pass.
I propose to add 'dont_stop' or 'continue_on_fail' option to command_sequence node. If it's set the following command sequence get's executed.
I think we were talking about this already in past.
I think that it probably makes sense. How about "notfail" as default and if user wants to specify some crucial sequence, add attribute "quit_on_fail" ?
Jiri
Makes sense. I'll create ticket for this in trac. Also 'quit_on_fail' sounds much better.
e.g.
<command_sequence continue_on_fail="yes"> <command simple_test> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_independent_on_previous_fail> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_if_previous_pass> </command_sequence>
Feel free to share your ideas!
-Jan _______________________________________________ LNST-developers mailing list LNST-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lnst-developers
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:47:29PM +0200, Jan Tluka wrote:
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:26:13PM CEST, jpirko@redhat.com wrote:
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:56PM CEST, jtluka@redhat.com wrote:
Hello everybody,
I'm thinking about changing current behavior in evaluating recipes with more than one command sequence.
Currently if one of the command sequence fails the whole recipe is aborted and the rest of the command sequences won't be executed.
Imagine you have the recipe split into several logical parts and you'd like to see if any of them pass. Currently you have to rely on all of them to pass.
I propose to add 'dont_stop' or 'continue_on_fail' option to command_sequence node. If it's set the following command sequence get's executed.
I think we were talking about this already in past.
I think that it probably makes sense. How about "notfail" as default and if user wants to specify some crucial sequence, add attribute "quit_on_fail" ?
Jiri
Makes sense. I'll create ticket for this in trac. Also 'quit_on_fail' sounds much better.
Sounds good to me too :). I can have a look at it (it will require a couple of changes in NetTestParse and NetTestController).
The attribute should be bolean 'quit_on_fail', set to zero by default?
e.g.
<command_sequence continue_on_fail="yes"> <command simple_test> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_independent_on_previous_fail> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_if_previous_pass> </command_sequence>
Feel free to share your ideas!
-Jan _______________________________________________ LNST-developers mailing list LNST-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lnst-developers
LNST-developers mailing list LNST-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lnst-developers
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:29:15PM CEST, rpazdera@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:47:29PM +0200, Jan Tluka wrote:
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:26:13PM CEST, jpirko@redhat.com wrote:
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:56PM CEST, jtluka@redhat.com wrote:
Hello everybody,
I'm thinking about changing current behavior in evaluating recipes with more than one command sequence.
Currently if one of the command sequence fails the whole recipe is aborted and the rest of the command sequences won't be executed.
Imagine you have the recipe split into several logical parts and you'd like to see if any of them pass. Currently you have to rely on all of them to pass.
I propose to add 'dont_stop' or 'continue_on_fail' option to command_sequence node. If it's set the following command sequence get's executed.
I think we were talking about this already in past.
I think that it probably makes sense. How about "notfail" as default and if user wants to specify some crucial sequence, add attribute "quit_on_fail" ?
Jiri
Makes sense. I'll create ticket for this in trac. Also 'quit_on_fail' sounds much better.
Sounds good to me too :). I can have a look at it (it will require a couple of changes in NetTestParse and NetTestController).
The attribute should be bolean 'quit_on_fail', set to zero by default?
I have the work already done. Should be sent in few minutes.
-Jan
e.g.
<command_sequence continue_on_fail="yes"> <command simple_test> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_independent_on_previous_fail> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_if_previous_pass> </command_sequence>
Feel free to share your ideas!
-Jan _______________________________________________ LNST-developers mailing list LNST-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lnst-developers
LNST-developers mailing list LNST-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lnst-developers
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:45:17PM +0200, Jan Tluka wrote:
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:29:15PM CEST, rpazdera@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:47:29PM +0200, Jan Tluka wrote:
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:26:13PM CEST, jpirko@redhat.com wrote:
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:56PM CEST, jtluka@redhat.com wrote:
Hello everybody,
I'm thinking about changing current behavior in evaluating recipes with more than one command sequence.
Currently if one of the command sequence fails the whole recipe is aborted and the rest of the command sequences won't be executed.
Imagine you have the recipe split into several logical parts and you'd like to see if any of them pass. Currently you have to rely on all of them to pass.
I propose to add 'dont_stop' or 'continue_on_fail' option to command_sequence node. If it's set the following command sequence get's executed.
I think we were talking about this already in past.
I think that it probably makes sense. How about "notfail" as default and if user wants to specify some crucial sequence, add attribute "quit_on_fail" ?
Jiri
Makes sense. I'll create ticket for this in trac. Also 'quit_on_fail' sounds much better.
Sounds good to me too :). I can have a look at it (it will require a couple of changes in NetTestParse and NetTestController).
The attribute should be bolean 'quit_on_fail', set to zero by default?
I have the work already done. Should be sent in few minutes.
-Jan
Oh, ok, that's great! :)
I'll take something else then.
e.g.
<command_sequence continue_on_fail="yes"> <command simple_test> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_independent_on_previous_fail> </command_sequence>
<command_sequence> <command simple_test_gets_executed_if_previous_pass> </command_sequence>
Feel free to share your ideas!
-Jan _______________________________________________ LNST-developers mailing list LNST-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lnst-developers
LNST-developers mailing list LNST-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lnst-developers
lnst-developers@lists.fedorahosted.org