Re: fixed.gnome.org deployment update

[Iago Toral Quiroga <itoral igalia com>]

El vie, 31-10-2008 a las 14:20 +0100, Frederic Peters escribió:
> Is this possible for the coverage reports to fail?  Because, yes, that
> situation shouldn't be considered a build failure (for all but slaves
> administators I guess).

Yes they can fail, although that would be unusual. Mmm... now that I
think about it, it maybe that one slave does not support coverage, so in
that case it would fail for sure. The more i think about it the more I
like the idea of having optional steps...

> I didn't check but it may just amounts to add
> 
>  def evaluateCommand(self, cmd):
>      if cmd.rc != 0:
>          return WARNINGS
>      return SUCCESS
> 
> to the JHBuildModulePathCommand used for module-reports.sh

likely, yes.

> Then some little changes to ProjectsSummary.body (in buildbot/
> status/web/__init__.py) to get id of "steps[-1]" and use
> "get_check_step(steps)" instead, and we would be done.
> 
> I don't have coverage reports running, so I can't check this for sure,
> but I'll try to patch jhbuild somehow this week-end.

I can have a look at it later this week or test your commit if you do
(have done) something already.

> Btw, do you have any uncommited jhbuild changes ?  I could certainly
> look at them at the same time.

Not really, I already committed the changes needed to fix code coverage
support a few weeks ago. Since we agreed to leave code coverage as
something optional for slaves, these last changes are not really
suitable for upstream, although maybe we could upload the script that
we're using for generating the reports, just in case some slave wants to
implement the support.

Iago