This repository was archived by the owner on Feb 6, 2025. It is now read-only.
Clarify some code #1070
Merged
Clarify some code #1070
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Acceptance test failure fix: #1066 |
|
LGTM |
davidcassany
previously approved these changes
Apr 29, 2020
evrardjp
force-pushed
the
cleanup-skuba-update-code
branch
from
b07bc10 to
bf5483f
Compare
|
Rebased. |
dirkmueller
reviewed
Jun 11, 2020
evrardjp
force-pushed
the
cleanup-skuba-update-code
branch
from
bf5483f to
f0ac0e8
Compare
|
The problem in update acceptance should be fixed with #1169 when the CI is back green. |
Klaven
previously approved these changes
Jun 30, 2020
|
Overall LGTM, but please take a look at the test that is failing. I suspect it might not be related with this change, but I'm not 100% sure about that |
This is not a problem to use functions, variables for defining the version. However they burden the reviewer, which need to jumping through things, where it's not really necessary. This simplifies the review and the code.
Without this patch, one might be confused by the meaning of restart, and why we are doing actions twice. This patch makes it clear that the method used to evaluate if zypper should run twice is in fact dependent of zypper itself and it's return code (not on some kind of obscure code output). It should be easier to follow/review with this kind of wording.
evrardjp
force-pushed
the
cleanup-skuba-update-code
branch
from
f0ac0e8 to
493addf
Compare
|
Rebased. This should fix the broken test. |
jenting
approved these changes
Jul 8, 2020
chentex
pushed a commit
to chentex/skuba-1
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2020
* Remove unnecessary methods/variables for extracting version This is not a problem to use functions, variables for defining the version. However they burden the reviewer, which need to jumping through things, where it's not really necessary. This simplifies the review and the code. * Clarify "restart" Without this patch, one might be confused by the meaning of restart, and why we are doing actions twice. This patch makes it clear that the method used to evaluate if zypper should run twice is in fact dependent of zypper itself and it's return code (not on some kind of obscure code output). It should be easier to follow/review with this kind of wording. Co-authored-by: Jean-Philippe Evrard <jevrard@suse.com>
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Without this patch, one might be confused by the meaning of
restart, and why we are doing actions twice.
This patch makes it clear that the method used to evaluate
if zypper should run twice is in fact dependent of zypper itself
and it's return code (not on some kind of obscure code output).
It should be easier to follow/review with this kind of wording.
It also removes useless methods, to be more succint.