Attention is currently required from: laforge.

View Change

1 comment:

• File hlr/testenv.cfg:

  • Patch Set #2, Line 6: program=osmo-hlr

    would it possibly make sense to use the below patterns as implicit defaults? So basically just spec […]

    I have considered doing that, but decided against it for the following reasons:

    • This may lead to confusing errors down the line, in case the values for `make=`, `package=` and `copy=` inherited from the program name would not be correct. The testenv script would try to e.g. install the wrong package and fail, then users need to spend additional time (way more time than adding these few lines IMHO) to read the docs to understand this implicit behavior, figure out that they need to add a `package=` line and test again. Whereas if we already have a `package=` line it is explicit and self-explaining IMHO.
    • It could also be that we get config files that look correct, but were only tested with either binary repository or the make target, and the other one could be broken if the implicit value is wrong. By having it explicit, I think it's more likely that people will try to figure out the correct value.
    • `program=` may be more than just the program name, have environment variables or additional arguments (e.g. `ERL_FLAGS="-config osmo_dia2gsup.config" osmo-dia2gsup`, `osmo-sgsn -c osmo-sgsn.sns.cfg`) or even run a launcher script.

    But if you feel strongly about this, I could also rework it to separate the commandline from `program=` (adding a new `commandline=` variable), and use defaults for `commandline=`, `make=`, `package=` and `copy=` based on program.

To view, visit change 37695. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.