1 |
On 2/13/2014 10:42 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:19:35 -0500 |
3 |
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On Monday, February 10, 2014 20:22:36 Chris Reffett wrote: |
6 |
>>> This patch adds a --output-style option to repoman, which gives the |
7 |
>>> user a choice of output formats for the repoman checks. Choices are |
8 |
>>> "default" (current style) and "column" (a greppable format), but it |
9 |
>>> should be easy to add more. Fixes bug 481584. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> i'd expect a proper structured output would make sense to include in |
12 |
>> the default set. like JSON. just create a dict and send it to |
13 |
>> json.dump(). |
14 |
> |
15 |
> He is working on more changes to repoman and the output. So, if you |
16 |
> can, Chris, then do it, add a json option. |
17 |
> |
18 |
Sure, I'll take a crack at this. |
19 |
> |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>>> v2: Fix docstring to be complete and in the standard format, make |
22 |
>>> use of default choices in --output-style wrt comments by antarus |
23 |
>>> and dol-sen |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> erm, i thought the previous docstring was correct. it followed |
26 |
>> PEP257 while this new one is like javadoc or something. |
27 |
>> |
28 |
> |
29 |
> It is the existing format that has been around in portage for years. |
30 |
> There is even a page for it: |
31 |
> |
32 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/doc/policies/docstring-spec.xml |
33 |
> |
34 |
> It is also the style that epydoc recognizes. |
35 |
> |
36 |
>>> -utilities.format_qa_output(f, stats, fails, dofull, dofail, |
37 |
>>> options, qawarnings) |
38 |
>>> +if options.output_style == 'column': |
39 |
>>> + utilities.format_qa_output_column(f, stats, fails, dofull, |
40 |
>>> dofail, options, qawarnings) |
41 |
>>> +else: |
42 |
>>> + utilities.format_qa_output(f, stats, fails, dofull, |
43 |
>>> dofail, options, qawarnings) |
44 |
>> |
45 |
>> use a func pointer instead. |
46 |
>> format_outputs = { |
47 |
>> 'column': utilities.format_qa_output_column, |
48 |
>> 'default': utilities.format_qa_output, |
49 |
>> } |
50 |
>> format_output = format_outputs.get(options.output_style, |
51 |
>> format_outputs['default']) |
52 |
>> format_output(f, stats, fails, dofull, dofail, options, qawarnings) |
53 |
>> |
54 |
> |
55 |
> yeah, make it so. Good spot, Mike |
56 |
> |
57 |
Will make this change when I'm back at my devbox (probably Mondayish). |
58 |
> |
59 |
> Since Mike was too slow in replying, make another commit to change |
60 |
> it. |
61 |
> |
62 |
>>> + formatter.add_literal_data("NumberOf " + category |
63 |
>>> + " ") |
64 |
>> |
65 |
>> prefer to use % rather than + like so: |
66 |
>> 'NumberOf %s ' % category |
67 |
>> |
68 |
>>> + formatter.add_literal_data("%s" % number) |
69 |
>> |
70 |
> |
71 |
> well actually, for simple additions like that, string1 + string2, it is |
72 |
> actually faster. |
73 |
> But for multiple additions, %s is much better, faster. Also if the |
74 |
> string is translated, then use %s regardless. That way the %s can be |
75 |
> moved around for the translation. |
76 |
> |
77 |
>> str(number) |
78 |
>> -mike |
79 |
> |
80 |
> |
81 |
> |