Pierre-Yves Chibon pingou@pingoured.fr schrieb am Tue Dec 16 2014 at 2:52:33 PM:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:41:53PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 01:18:54PM +0000, Thomas Spura wrote:
From 377c783cbb9460bba87fdda1add1251bffe45b79 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Spura thomas.spura@gmail.com Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:12:34 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Catch exception from FAS, when group does not
exist
Furthermore, the group_type must be 'pkgdb', otherwise pkgdb would throw an error later on.
scripts/process-git-requests/process-git-requests | 16
+++++++++-------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/process-git-requests/process-git-requests
b/scripts/process-git-requests/process-git-requests
index bce4a54..99de338 100755 --- a/scripts/process-git-requests/process-git-requests +++ b/scripts/process-git-requests/process-git-requests @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ import time import webbrowser import socket from configobj import ConfigObj, flatten_errors -from fedora.client import AccountSystem, AuthError +from fedora.client import AccountSystem, AuthError, AppError from pkgdb2client import PkgDB, PkgDBException from optparse import OptionParser from validate import Validator @@ -507,12 +507,14 @@ def check_owner(fas, owner): if not group.endswith('-sig'): warnings.append('WARNING: "%s" is not a valid FAS group.'
% group)
return warnings
group = fas.group_by_name(group)if not 'group_type' in group:warnings.append('WARNING: "%s" is not a valid FASaccount/group.' % owner)
try:group = fas.group_by_name(group)if not group['group_type'] == 'pkgdb':warnings.append('WARNING: "%s" is not a valid FASgroup.' % group)
return warningsexcept AppError:warnings.append('WARNING: "%s" is not a valid FAS group.'% group)
+1 for me otherwise,
There is now a different warning message.
Actually, one more thing.
If you
- option a) move the check for the group type outside of the try/except
(likely going to need something like group = None, try/except if group is not None:...
or
- option b) move more of the logic inside the try/except
You can probably keep it so that the method as only 1 return statement :)
I took option b, but initially avoided it, because I thought it was more readable back then ;)
So all changes are now melt into one commit now, see the attachment :)
Greetings, Tom
But I could see other people disagreeing with this :)
Pierre