With the ### I followed what the code was doing on success or failure anyway -- just scroll down to the end of the original source file. I'm not sure I agree with ### either but consistency is good.
Also, without this logging you don't see any error our build environment. It seems that the way this is currently implemented/used, client/bin/autotest would simply catch the exception and silently exit with an error code of 1. So you don't see anything. Add to that that our build system is _very_ noisy anyway. So, adding more noise in this case seemed to make sense... Darin On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:33 AM, John Admanski <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure I really agree with the ### wrapped around the logging > message. I'm sure it makes it easier to spot this particular error, but > presumably the exception will be noisy enough to make this visible anyway? > > -- John > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Darin Petkov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Without this change there was no indication if the test name pattern >> matched any tests or not. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Autotest mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Autotest mailing list [email protected] http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest
