BIND 10 #1365: Restarts in #213

[BIND 10 Development]

#1365: Restarts in #213
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  jinmei
  vorner                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:
                   Priority:  major  |  Sprint-20111108
                  Component:  Boss   |            Resolution:
  of BIND                            |             Sensitive:  0
                   Keywords:         |           Sub-Project:  Core
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |  Estimated Difficulty:  0
Feature Depending on Ticket:         |           Total Hours:  0
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => jinmei


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:3 jinmei]:
 > This is tricky, so I added some more detailed documentation about this
 > point (pushed).

 Thanks for that. Seems like the computers are able to bring new surprises
 all the time :-)).

 > - maybe rename BoB.processes to BoB.components?

 I added comment about that, I believe processes is better, since there
 isn't one-to-one mapping between components and processes.

 > - Likewise, I'd rename the 'info' parameter of register_process() to
 >   'component' and document that it's expected to be an object of
 (sub)class
 >   of BaseComponent.

 The documentation is in 213-incremental already, it will get there on the
 merge. Parameter renamed.

 > - restart_processes() is now never-called but kept for reference,
 >   right?  I'd add a comment or doc string about that not to confuse
 >   people who happen to see this code.

 I added a comment. It actually is called, but as the loop is over empty
 dict, it only returns None and does nothing. Yes, it is preserved for the
 time when we return the delayed restarts, which should be soon I hope.

 > - test_show_processes_started: I'm not sure if this replacement is
 >   okay.  Actually I'm not sure about the original intent of the test,
 >   but from the test name it seems to try to test whether the intended
 >   set of processes (components) have started up.  If so, the specific
 >   list of components had a meaning.  (We may eventually have to
 >   replace them from a list of processes based on the default config,
 >   but right now they are hardcoded).

 Actually, this tests the method that lists the currently running
 processes, when you send the Boss show_processes command. It didn't test
 the right processes are started, the start_all_processes was used to only
 fill in some processes to be tested. Actually, this way it is closer to
 the idea of unit tests, testing only the one thing, and it is the function
 providing the processes. It is more or less the same as the above test,
 but checks it works even when there are some tests (so the format can be
 checked).

 > The following are suggestions that I found useful when I chased the
 > systest failure further:

 Added both.

 Thank you

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1365#comment:5>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development