I just looked at a patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90310/3 which
was given a -1 due to not checking that every call to list_hosts returns
200. I realized that we don't have a shared understanding or policy
about this. We need to make sure that each api is tested to return the
right respo
On 7 May 2014 14:53, David Kranz wrote:
> I just looked at a patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90310/3 which was
> given a -1 due to not checking that every call to list_hosts returns 200. I
> realized that we don't have a shared understanding or policy about this.
> Thoughts?
While I don
Hi David,
2014-05-07 22:53 GMT+09:00 David Kranz :
> I just looked at a patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90310/3 which was
> given a -1 due to not checking that every call to list_hosts returns 200. I
> realized that we don't have a shared understanding or policy about this. We
> need to mak
On 05/07/2014 10:23 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> 2014-05-07 22:53 GMT+09:00 David Kranz :
>> I just looked at a patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90310/3 which was
>> given a -1 due to not checking that every call to list_hosts returns 200. I
>> realized that we don't have a sh
On 05/07/2014 10:07 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 7 May 2014 14:53, David Kranz wrote:
I just looked at a patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90310/3 which was
given a -1 due to not checking that every call to list_hosts returns 200. I
realized that we don't have a shared understanding or poli
Hi Sean,
2014-05-07 23:28 GMT+09:00 Sean Dague :
> On 05/07/2014 10:23 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> 2014-05-07 22:53 GMT+09:00 David Kranz :
>>> I just looked at a patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90310/3 which was
>>> given a -1 due to not checking that every call to list_
Hi All,
>>2014-05-07 22:53 GMT+09:00 David Kranz :
>> I just looked at a patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90310/3
>> which was given a -1 due to not checking that every call to list_hosts
>> returns 200. I realized that we don't have a shared understanding or
>> policy about this. We need
On 05/07/2014 10:48 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
Hi Sean,
2014-05-07 23:28 GMT+09:00 Sean Dague :
On 05/07/2014 10:23 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
Hi David,
2014-05-07 22:53 GMT+09:00 David Kranz :
I just looked at a patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90310/3 which was
given a -1 due to no
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:50:03AM -0400, David Kranz wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 10:48 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
> >Hi Sean,
> >
> >2014-05-07 23:28 GMT+09:00 Sean Dague :
> >>On 05/07/2014 10:23 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
> >>>Hi David,
> >>>
> >>>2014-05-07 22:53 GMT+09:00 David Kranz :
> I ju
2014-05-10 0:29 GMT+09:00 Matthew Treinish :
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:50:03AM -0400, David Kranz wrote:
>> On 05/07/2014 10:48 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
>> >Hi Sean,
>> >
>> >2014-05-07 23:28 GMT+09:00 Sean Dague :
>> >>On 05/07/2014 10:23 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
>> >>>Hi David,
>> >>>
>>
On 05/09/2014 11:29 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:50:03AM -0400, David Kranz wrote:
On 05/07/2014 10:48 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
Hi Sean,
2014-05-07 23:28 GMT+09:00 Sean Dague :
On 05/07/2014 10:23 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
Hi David,
2014-05-07 22:53 GMT+09:00
Hi Matthew,
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Treinish [mailto:mtrein...@kortar.org]
> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 12:29 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Checking for return codes in tempest
12 matches
Mail list logo
