[Yum-devel] [PATCHES] Repository with fixes and new operations test frame work

[Tim Lauridsen]

Florian Festi wrote:
> Florian Festi wrote:
>> seth vidal wrote:
>>> okay - I'm looking at these patches (thanks to jbowes for the git help)
>>> and I'm still seeing FakeRpmSack and the stub installed() in there. I
>>> thought we decided that doing it that way was not all that helpful and
>>> it would be better to implement it as exists() in PackageSackBase and
>>> get around that?
>>
>> I stick with that because it was the less invasive way of getting 
>> things up and running. exists() is a be bit generic IMHO. But if we 
>> want to move that way I can provide a patch if no one else wants to 
>> do it (should be quite trivial). On the other hand I see no reason 
>> why that should block anything.
>
> Ok, rebased the patch set to current HEAD (don't try this at home -  
> §$%! 3-way merge). There is now a patch implementing 
> PackageSackBase.contains() as replacement of installed(). Sorry, I 
> really couldn't make friend with "exists" [*] (Although I am in a 
> sufficient existentialist mood right now). Feel free to use 
> query-replace... :)=
>
> Florian
>
> [*] The reason why i chose "contains" over "exists" is that "exists" 
> questions at a global level while the method is restricted to the sack 
> itself. "exists" should also not be affected by adding/removing 
> to/from the sack - but the implementation is (and should). So the name 
> needs to express the fact that the pkg needs to be part of that sack 
> and "contains" does that more clearly.
> In fact it is even worse as "exists" doesn't even make clear if the 
> existence of pkgs or the sack itself is in question.
> _______________________________________________
> Yum-devel mailing list
> Yum-devel at linux.duke.edu
> https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
Contains() is fine with me as a replacement for exists(), the current 
patches look fine to me

Tim