Re: [Fab-user] Execution branch no more (and: creating tests)

[Niklas Lindström]

A tiny correction: I did find a simple (but perhaps crude) way to make
my decorators cooperate, which I just pushed.

(.. I simply created a `_needs_connect` helper which, before your
`func_code` inspection, checks if there is a  `_wrapped_command`
attribute on the command and inspects that instead if present..)

Best regards,
Niklas



On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Niklas Lindström <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Christian and Jeff!
>
> I've continued my work and am ready to discuss it. Prior to that I
> need to raise some issues though. I have pulled your recent changes
> (which this thread is about), and come up with some problems. I raise
> these in this mail but will post another one about my changes as well,
> so we can discuss them more separately.
>
>
> 1. Using `require` for the variable "fab_hosts" now has no effect,
> since it is present as an empty list by default. It would work if
> "fab_hosts" is removed from the default variables in ENV again.. What
> do you think?
>
>
> 2. This only affects my decorator utilities. The use of func_code
> introspection to trigger _connect doesn't play with these. This is
> since the func_code is from of the wrapper that calls e.g. `require`,
> and not the actual command function.  I have no *easy* way to fix
> this, so for now the decorators aren't helpful for anything using
> remote operations. :/
>
> My options are either to back out my decorators, or to attempt to
> change the analysis of which code needs `_connect` to be called. I
> have some ideas, but perhaps you already have further plans for this
> part?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Niklas
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Christian Vest Hansen
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Jeff Forcier <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> After a bunch of merging and cherry-picking (still learning Git, it
>>> seems...), my master branch should now represent all the relevant
>>> changes on Christian's side of things, as applied to what used to be
>>> the execution branch.
>>
>> I got your pull request and have merged. I also made a couple of
>> changes to polish it a bit and ease the transition from `rolling` and
>> `fanout` fab_modes to `broad`, `deep`, `serial` and `parallel`.
>> Otherwise, I discovered that fabfiles that explicitly set an
>> unsupported fab_mode will experience some odd behaviour when run.
>>
>> --
>> Venlig hilsen / Kind regards,
>> Christian Vest Hansen.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fab-user mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
>>
>