Thanks for the reply Julian! On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Julian Edwards wrote:
>On Thursday 29 July 2010 22:58:14 Barry Warsaw wrote: >> I'm writing a script against the API to more or less mimic what you >> see on https://launchpad.net/~user/+archive/ppa/+packages but I >> *think* that not all the information I want is exported. >> >> What I'm doing is iterating through all the Build records returned >> from .getbuildRecords(pocket='Release') and looking for records with >> a .buildstate != 'Successfully built'. However, I also want to get >> the source package information that was requested to be built. As >> near as I can tell, I can often get this off of >> Build.current_source_publication, but that's often None, for reasons >> I do not fully understand. > >It only returns the publication if the publication is active. If it's >been superseded or deleted then None is returned. I think you should >change that buildstate filter to be inclusive of the states that you >need (because you're including the "superseded" state right now). I'm looking at the API documentation for getBuildRecords(). It seems that the build_state parameter only accepts one of the several enums, so if I cared about e.g. Successfully built and Currently building, I'd have to make multiple calls to getBuildRecord(). It might be better to not filter on buildstate until I start iterating through the loop. Thanks for the explanation about active publications. I don't actually see an explicit state for "deleted", so I'm guessing that's just an implicit state that's not directly represented. >> E.g. system-config-printer from here: >> >> https://launchpad.net/~pythoneers/+archive/py27stack4/+packages?start=100&b >> atch=50 >> >> (hopefully that's the right batch, you apparently cannot generate a >> url directly to that build record via the web ui) >> >> What I think I really want is the .source_package_release, but >> that's not exported. I could file a bug against that if that would >> help (both you and me > >I doubt we'll export that since all the important information is >present on the publication, and also source package release doesn't >have an obvious URL on its own. We've taken the strategy so far of >putting exported SPR data on the publication instead. > >> Any suggestions? > >First, ask yourself if builds for superseded sources are relevant? They're not. Thanks very much for the explanation. I give it a shot. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
