Excerpts from Bill Peck's message of 2012-12-20 22:51:06 +1000:
On 12/19/2012 11:50 PM, Dan Callaghan wrote:
First sketch of an HTTP API below. I don't think I've forgotten anything...
Hi Dan,
What if a group wants to use an alternate harness? Is the idea that the alternate harness provide a backend plugin which would use this API? or would we be free to communicate directly back to a different results server?
I think if you did have an alternative harness that sent results elsewhere that would be fine, but it would still need some code to at least report the state of what's running and extend the watchdog (even if it just reports one result against one task with no logs, or whatever). So it could use this API to do that.
What I had in mind here was actually the simple_harness.py which is floating around (written by some users) as well as the future versions of beah or Beaker Simple Harness or whatever we develop in future. They would all benefit from having a stable API which stays backwards compatible.