Code review comment for lp://qastaging/~jimbaker/pyjuju/generate-html

Revision history for this message
Gustavo Niemeyer (niemeyer) wrote :

[1]

This tool is doing three different things:

1. Running bzr update
2. Running churn
3. Converting churn output to html

The tool we discussed should do 3 only.

Let it take as input a directory full of churn output directories, and
produce the output based on the directory name. So we run it like:

$ butler.py watefall/ > waterfall.html

Given that within the waterfall dir one might expect:

    /waterfall
        /341
            some-test-name.out
            other-test-name.out.FAILED
        /342
            some-test-name.out
            other-test-name.out

etc. butler will then have the 341, 342, etc in the rows, and the test
names in the columns, with OK/FAILED in the cells, as you've done.

Once this is in place, let's create a tiny but opinionated driver
that knows how to update a branch *revision by revision* and drive
churn and butler from outside. This driver must get as input _just_
the build directory, and will have three things inside it.

So

  $ whatever build/

Generates

  build/
    ensemble/
    waterfall/
    waterfall.html

But once you run

  $ whatever build/

again, it will notice that there's already content inside it,
and will just update revision by revision the branch between
the latest revision in the waterfall and the current known
tip of the trunk.

With that in place, we can put this logic in a machine, and have it
rsyncing this content out into a public web server.

Do not use bzrlib, btw. Use bzr itself. We're not doing anything
fancy, and the command line API won't change.

[2]

Please put a copy of pystache within the tree.

[3]

96 + <td>{{#failed}}<a href="{{path}}"><strong>FAILED</strong></a>{{/failed}}
97 + {{^failed}}Succeeded{{/failed}}

We have the succeeded output as well. Let's offer it so people can
investigate differences.

It might also be better to have "ok" (lowercased) rather than "Succeeded", to make the
"FAILED" one much more outstanding.

review: Needs Fixing

« Back to merge proposal