Crucible - Comment Search
| Review | Name | Created | Custom Fields | Content |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CR-1 | 22 Jan 2010 |
Thanks for setting up, please let me know how helpful you find the process and we can make a recommendations about how to use crucible in other parts of the project, but for now don't get to distracted from your task list. |
||
| CR-1 | 28 Jan 2010 |
I just don't know enough about the code design or the previous version to serve as an effective reviewer. |
||
| CR-1 | 29 Jan 2010 |
Ranking:
Minor
Classification: Factually incorrect |
Fixed in git - sendTo is actually pulled from the message if required, otherwise send to the pub-sub service. |
|
| test1-1 | 23 Jun 2010 |
This is just for testing license. |
||
| CR-6 | 25 Jun 2010 |
How about a link to the DAP protocol? |
||
| CR-6 | 25 Jun 2010 |
Add a doc string to PersisterClient class |
||
| CR-5 | 25 Jun 2010 |
The IStore interface is reasonable. I think it is the right choice to use the maybeDeferred wrapper function, especially if we are making a synchronous call. When we use the in memory key value store, the operations on the underlying dictionary should be synchronous. |
||
| CR-6 | 25 Jun 2010 |
I like this as a reminder to revisit later, but only if it's caught by buildbot. SImilar to TODO. |
||
| CR-6 | 25 Jun 2010 |
Now that we have a copy saved in local /tmp, it it worthwhile to diff against the original? |
||
| CR-6 | 28 Jun 2010 |
Probably shouldn't use dict as a content container. Even when the lcaarch + magnet integration message layer is fixed to support sending arbitrary binary data, sending application content as a nested |
||
| CR-6 | 29 Jun 2010 |
It's pretty unusual to have multiple triple-quotes inside a single function. There is usual one and only one, and that one defines the function's docstring. I say this with the experience of looking at a lot of other "large/popular" python libs, no because it's "against the rules" or whatever. |
||
| CR-6 | 29 Jun 2010 |
This class has a couple methods with a fair amount of application logic inside of them. I'd say this is something that should be mostly avoided, because it results in better separation of concerns, as well as the benefit that stand-alone application logic can be unit-tested independent of the messaging code. I'm guilty of doing the same somewhat, but I'd say it's probably best to avoid this as much as possible. |
||
| CR-7 | 29 Jun 2010 |
It'd be a bit more readable to use the |
||
| CR-7 | 29 Jun 2010 |
What's the magic mode string do? |
||
| CR-7 | 29 Jun 2010 |
This seems like a bug. A doxygen string inside parentheses? Deliberate? |
||
| CR-7 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Perhaps raise a not-implemented error or exception? |
||
| CR-8 | 29 Jun 2010 |
I saw this defined in the CAS code as well. Perhaps a common file? |
||
| CR-8 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Also saw this idiom in the CAS code. Why doxygen tags as parameters? |
||
| CR-8 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Debug code? |
||
| CR-8 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Consider using assert to validate the assumption |
||
| CR-8 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Move to unit tests. |
||
| CR-8 | 29 Jun 2010 |
An explanation would help - porcelain refers to the git implementation, as do most of the classes (blob, hash, object) so it'd help to have pointers to the git object model and perhaps explain that this reimplements same. |
||
| CR-8 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Why the empty test? Unfinished or deliberate? |
||
| CR-8 | 29 Jun 2010 |
If broken code, you might consider using the SkipTest instead of commenting it out. |
||
| CR-8 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Lots of pyflakes warnings on the code right now - |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Eight files is a very large review. Ug. |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Should probably have a bit more file header - #!env plus usual doxygen metadata. |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Non-obvious code, comments would be helpful. |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Lots of empty doc strings. |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Probably belongs in the test file. |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
What does this accomplish? Are you expecting an exception? Is there any way to validate the output? |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Perhaps use skipTest instead of commenting them out? |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Third definition I've seen of this today... |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Move to test? |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
pyflakes complains of unused imports |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Quite a few pyflakes warnings, including a redefinition of test_resource_state |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
On the client side, a docstring explaining how to use it? What's a resource? What isn't? Who should use this? |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Since you've got read and write, perhaps also query and delete? |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Should this be self.failUnlessEqual? Not sure what assertFalse does with two arguments. |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Is this deprecated code then? |
||
| CR-10 | 29 Jun 2010 |
How does this differ from get_service_instance? |
||
| CR-5 | 29 Jun 2010 |
With this commented out, cruft key/value pairs will accumulate in cassandra. Need a way to cleanup after a test. |
||
| CR-5 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Worth a docstring to note that this is the base class for the tests further down the file. |
||
| CR-6 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Not easy to do, might be possible. |
||
| CR-6 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Will do. |
||
| CR-11 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Small nitpick: make this 4 spaces not 8 |
||
| CR-11 | 29 Jun 2010 |
This method body is too long. Refactor it into smaller methods. The routines that add properties and add associations can be made their own methods. |
||
| CR-5 | 29 Jun 2010 |
In reply to the objective: |
||
| CR-11 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Good job. |
||
| CR-11 | 29 Jun 2010 |
Add doc strings to all of the classes. The doc strings should explain the functionality of a class and any interactions |