New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update mdrepo.py #106

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@mrvanes
Contributor

mrvanes commented May 29, 2017

This fix enables "bare" aliases to be succesfully retrievable via /alias requests. The main reason turns out to be an error in inlince doc in builtins.py.

Update mdrepo.py
This fix enables "bare" aliases to be succesfully retrievable via /alias requests. The main reason turns out to be an error in inlince doc in builtins.py.
@leifj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@leifj

leifj May 29, 2017

Collaborator

Can you help me figure out why the test fails? I'm not ruling out the possibility that the test is broken or just failed randomly but I also wan't to make sure this fix doesn't break anything.

Collaborator

leifj commented May 29, 2017

Can you help me figure out why the test fails? I'm not ruling out the possibility that the test is broken or just failed randomly but I also wan't to make sure this fix doesn't break anything.

@mrvanes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrvanes

mrvanes May 29, 2017

Contributor

I'm not a travis expert, but I can try.
The test PR seems ok. But here I see things like this:

root: ERROR: Generating RSA private key, 2048 bit long modulus
...........+++
...........................................................+++
unable to write 'random state'
e is 65537 (0x10001)

I just don't understand why a pull request with harmless comment does not trip on this as well?

Contributor

mrvanes commented May 29, 2017

I'm not a travis expert, but I can try.
The test PR seems ok. But here I see things like this:

root: ERROR: Generating RSA private key, 2048 bit long modulus
...........+++
...........................................................+++
unable to write 'random state'
e is 65537 (0x10001)

I just don't understand why a pull request with harmless comment does not trip on this as well?

@leifj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@leifj

leifj May 29, 2017

Collaborator

Thats actually not an error but stdout from a successful test. Look for "FAIL"

Collaborator

leifj commented May 29, 2017

Thats actually not an error but stdout from a successful test. Look for "FAIL"

@mrvanes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrvanes

mrvanes May 29, 2017

Contributor

The

- select as /ndn

in test_alias_ndn PyFFDTest fails, as is to be expected. Back to the drawing board to see how we can discriminate between true and false positives for the strip("/").

Or, correct the inline documentation in builtins.py?

Contributor

mrvanes commented May 29, 2017

The

- select as /ndn

in test_alias_ndn PyFFDTest fails, as is to be expected. Back to the drawing board to see how we can discriminate between true and false positives for the strip("/").

Or, correct the inline documentation in builtins.py?

mrvanes added some commits May 29, 2017

Update mdrepo.py
Revert strip("/") fix.
Update store.py
Move strip("/") fix to store.py where a fallback check can be or'd with the original check. This makes distinction between /alias and alias impossible.
@coveralls

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coveralls

coveralls May 29, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 85.501% when pulling eecaf95 on mrvanes:patch-1 into 1d032fe on leifj:master.

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 85.501% when pulling eecaf95 on mrvanes:patch-1 into 1d032fe on leifj:master.

@coveralls

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coveralls

coveralls May 29, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 85.501% when pulling eecaf95 on mrvanes:patch-1 into 1d032fe on leifj:master.

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 85.501% when pulling eecaf95 on mrvanes:patch-1 into 1d032fe on leifj:master.

@mrvanes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrvanes

mrvanes May 29, 2017

Contributor

If you agree with the replacement of the strip("/") to store.py this PR looks fine now.

Contributor

mrvanes commented May 29, 2017

If you agree with the replacement of the strip("/") to store.py this PR looks fine now.

@leifj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@leifj

leifj Jan 17, 2018

Collaborator

Reviewing old PRs (sorry about the delay) - can you help me unconflict this PR and also perhaps provide a testcase that demonstrates the breakage?

Collaborator

leifj commented Jan 17, 2018

Reviewing old PRs (sorry about the delay) - can you help me unconflict this PR and also perhaps provide a testcase that demonstrates the breakage?

@coveralls

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coveralls

coveralls Jan 19, 2018

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling 6e0d25d on mrvanes:patch-1 into ** on leifj:master**.

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling 6e0d25d on mrvanes:patch-1 into ** on leifj:master**.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment