Re: Multi-sequence evaluation
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:26:13PM CEST, jpirko(a)redhat.com wrote:
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:56PM CEST, jtluka(a)redhat.com wrote:
>Hello everybody,
>
>I'm thinking about changing current behavior in evaluating recipes with
>more than one command sequence.
>
>Currently if one of the command sequence fails the whole recipe is
>aborted and the rest of the command sequences won't be executed.
>
>Imagine you have the recipe split into several logical parts and you'd
>like to see if any of them pass. Currently you have to rely on all of them
>to pass.
>
>I propose to add 'dont_stop' or 'continue_on_fail' option to
>command_sequence node. If it's set the following command sequence get's
>executed.
I think we were talking about this already in past.
I think that it probably makes sense. How about "notfail" as default and
if user wants to specify some crucial sequence, add attribute
"quit_on_fail" ?
Jiri
Makes sense. I'll create ticket for this in trac. Also 'quit_on_fail'
sounds much better.
>
>e.g.
> <command_sequence continue_on_fail="yes">
> <command simple_test>
> </command_sequence>
>
> <command_sequence>
> <command simple_test_gets_executed_independent_on_previous_fail>
> </command_sequence>
>
> <command_sequence>
> <command simple_test_gets_executed_if_previous_pass>
> </command_sequence>
>
>Feel free to share your ideas!
>
>-Jan
>_______________________________________________
>LNST-developers mailing list
>LNST-developers(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lnst-developers