-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
fixed bsc#910791 #231
fixed bsc#910791 #231
Conversation
@@ -293,13 +293,17 @@ def check_ok_fssize(size_k, volume) | |||
|
|||
if Ops.less_than(size_k, min_size_k) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
http://www.rubydoc.info/github/yast/yast-ruby-bindings/Yast%2FOps.less_than
Claims that I should use > instead of Ops.less_than.
Anyone can confirm this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@dwaas Yes. All those Ops
and Builtins
methods are ugly leftovers from the autoconversion from YCP to Ruby that we will like to see dying.
They were introduced because YCP and Ruby operators had different behavior in 1% of situations, but every time we touch code we try to remove them in favor of standard Ruby. As said, in 99% of occasions it just means an straightforward substitution like the one you mentioned.
Popup.Warning( | ||
Builtins.sformat( | ||
_( | ||
"Your partition is too small to use %1.\nThe minimum size for this file system is %2.\n" | ||
"Your partition is too small to use %1.\n" + | ||
"Your inputted size (after rounding up) is %2.\n" + |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not proper English. Please change this to
"The size you entered (after rounding up) is %2.\n"
@@ -293,13 +293,17 @@ def check_ok_fssize(size_k, volume) | |||
|
|||
if Ops.less_than(size_k, min_size_k) | |||
# warning message, %1 is replaced by fs name (e.g. Ext3) | |||
# %2 is prelaced by a size (e.g. 10 MB) | |||
# %2 is replaced by the user inputted size (e.g. 20GB) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as below: Please change "inputted" to "entered".
Even if it's just a comment, it hurts the eyes. ;-)
Thanks for reviewing, Stefan and Ancor. Just pushed the fixes. Tested them the same way and there seem to be no differences. |
The wording is okay now. Thanks! |
------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
Sat Sep 24 14:47:48 UTC 2016 - dwaas@suse.com | ||
|
||
- fix for bsc#910791 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
please be a bit more verbose about change you did. Something like Avoid confusion in small partition warning by displaying also rounded input value (bsc#910791)
and add - 3.1.104
to next line like other entries.
Then please make it mergable and I will merge it.
@dwaas there is still conflict in spec file, please also solve it. |
warning message for too small disks was made clearer to avoid situations where rounding would output something actually false. e.g. Entering 11MiB and getting as a message: "Your partition is too small to use ext3. The minimum size for this file system is 10.00 MiB"
the method is a remainder of YCP -> Ruby autoconversion
Conflicts resolved at #246 |
COMMIT MESSAGE
EXTRA COMMENTS
tested on LEAP 42.1
locally make check wasn't succeeding 100% likely because I only took the latest libstorage and yast-storage checkouts and use the rest from usual packages distributed in openSUSE Leap.
the remote package build succeeds (osc build) with the following output:
...
[ 65s] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Please DO note that the current fix leaks information through the abstractions. I'm looking forward to discuss better phrasing to this fix.
some ideas could be:
"The machine interpreted %s", size_k
etc...