Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] Initial fetch() refactoring

[Sebastian Luther]

Am 19.01.2014 04:07, schrieb W. Trevor King:
> I felt like I should actually make a useful contribution to balance
> the less useful commit-message discussion ;).  Browsing through the
> open Portage bugs, #175612 looked interesting.  After I looked at
> pym/portage/package/ebuild/fetch.py, I decided to take a step back and
> just try and refactor fetch(), which was pushing 1k lines.  Here are
> three paches pulling fairly self-contained blocks out of fetch().  I
> thought I'd float them to the list to see if this was a productive
> avenue, or if this is going to be too much work to review.  I tried to
> avoid making too many changes other than the function-extraction, but
> in some places I couldn't help myself ;).

Good idea.

>
> The patches aren't particularly well tested yet.  I ran the test suite
> and got some errors, but they seemed to be related to my non-root
> invocation, and not due to these changes themselves.  I thought I'd
> post my work so far, before digging deeper into the test suite.

The tests can be run as non-root user. Make sure all the files in the
git repo are +rw for that user.

You should check the result using pyflakes.

Do you have these patches in the publicly accessible git repo?

>
> Cheers,
> Trevor
>
> [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=175612
>
> W. Trevor King (3):
>   pym/portage/package/ebuild/fetch.py: Factor out
>     _get_checksum_failure_max_tries
>   pym/portage/package/ebuild/fetch.py: Factor out _get_fetch_resume_size
>   pym/portage/package/ebuild/fetch.py: Factor out _get_uris
>
>  pym/portage/package/ebuild/fetch.py | 305 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 177 insertions(+), 128 deletions(-)
>