Re: [PATCH 1/2] new routines for socket based synchronisation
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 13:37 +0100, Jiri Jaburek wrote:
On 11/19/2013 06:46 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
>>
>>> ---
>>> is the fatal error handling OK?
>>
>> No: by directly exiting, you are e.g. preventing any cleanups from
>> running (and logs from uploading when run on beaker), unfortunately. My
>> preference would be to just return a RC and let the user handle the
>> failure e.g. with rlRun. Use journal logs for messages. It's done this
>> way everywhere BL.
>
> I'm assuming that by "RC" you mean "return code".
> I'll change it to do rlLogFatal and "return big-n" on unrecoverable
errors
> then.
IMHO rlLogError would be better - it's used by other BeakerLib code
(rlLogFatal being never used). Also returning 0 for success and 1 for
fail (or 2/3/4/.. for special purposes) is widely accepted.
+1
PM