On 02/13/2014 10:42 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:19:35 -0500
> Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, February 10, 2014 20:22:36 Chris Reffett wrote:
>>> This patch adds a --output-style option to repoman, which gives the
>>> user a choice of output formats for the repoman checks. Choices are
>>> "default" (current style) and "column" (a greppable format), but it
>>> should be easy to add more. Fixes bug 481584.
>>
>> i'd expect a proper structured output would make sense to include in
>> the default set. like JSON. just create a dict and send it to
>> json.dump().
>
> He is working on more changes to repoman and the output. So, if you
> can, Chris, then do it, add a json option.
>
Will do that after my next set of changes to repoman (to be emailed shortly)
>
>>
>>> v2: Fix docstring to be complete and in the standard format, make
>>> use of default choices in --output-style wrt comments by antarus
>>> and dol-sen
>>
>> erm, i thought the previous docstring was correct. it followed
>> PEP257 while this new one is like javadoc or something.
>>
>
> It is the existing format that has been around in portage for years.
> There is even a page for it:
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/doc/policies/docstring-spec.xml
>
> It is also the style that epydoc recognizes.
>
>>> -utilities.format_qa_output(f, stats, fails, dofull, dofail,
>>> options, qawarnings)
>>> +if options.output_style == 'column':
>>> + utilities.format_qa_output_column(f, stats, fails, dofull,
>>> dofail, options, qawarnings)
>>> +else:
>>> + utilities.format_qa_output(f, stats, fails, dofull,
>>> dofail, options, qawarnings)
>>
>> use a func pointer instead.
>> format_outputs = {
>> 'column': utilities.format_qa_output_column,
>> 'default': utilities.format_qa_output,
>> }
>> format_output = format_outputs.get(options.output_style,
>> format_outputs['default'])
>> format_output(f, stats, fails, dofull, dofail, options, qawarnings)
>>
>
> yeah, make it so. Good spot, Mike
>
Committed, thanks for the spot.
>
> Since Mike was too slow in replying, make another commit to change
> it.
>
>>> + formatter.add_literal_data("NumberOf " + category
>>> + " ")
>>
>> prefer to use % rather than + like so:
>> 'NumberOf %s ' % category
>>
>>> + formatter.add_literal_data("%s" % number)
>>
>
> well actually, for simple additions like that, string1 + string2, it is
> actually faster.
> But for multiple additions, %s is much better, faster. Also if the
> string is translated, then use %s regardless. That way the %s can be
> moved around for the translation.
>
>> str(number)
>> -mike
>
>
>
