-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/23/#review32
-----------------------------------------------------------
testing/test_bugchange.py
<
http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/23/#comment53>
I realize that I'm being picky here but why are you effectively monkeypatching the
do_proposal method and creating a Dingus that effectively does nothing in this case?
Wouldn't it be closer to actual behavior to have the Dingus throw a fault instead
of swapping out the do_proposal method?
Either way, I'd rather see one approach or the other - creating mock-ish objects
that aren't actually used is not a good practice to get into
- Tim Flink
On April 30, 2013, 8:43 a.m., Martin Krizek wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/23/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated April 30, 2013, 8:43 a.m.)
Review request for blockerbugs.
Bugs: 372
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/372
Repository: blockerbugs
Description
-------
This patch wraps bugzilla faults in a BugzillaError and prevents them from not being
logged and generating http 500 server error.
Diffs
-----
testing/test_bugchange.py 596e922283bfd20fc0ac6811aa1eef3ef45378ea
blockerbugs/util/bz_interface.py 0579b2455b57a03e3bee570b8cd97aac0eeaf1a4
blockerbugs/controllers/main.py 6d32e5de91900cda33f5e0342c7854adb24fc8b6
Diff:
http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/23/diff/
Testing
-------
Thanks,
Martin Krizek