From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk (Ben Hutchings)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 21:03:54 +0100
Subject: [cip-dev] [cip-kernel-sec] report_affected: report cip branches
In-Reply-To: <1561060306.21054.51.camel@codethink.co.uk>
References: <20190620061309.1252-1-daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp>
	<1561060306.21054.51.camel@codethink.co.uk>
Message-ID: <1561061034.21054.53.camel@codethink.co.uk>
To: cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org
List-Id: cip-dev.lists.cip-project.org

On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 20:51 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 15:13 +0900, Daniel Sangorrin wrote:
> > Allow reporting on cip branches, instead of returning an
> > error like this one:
> 
> [...]
> > ?def get_stable_branch(branch_name):
> > -????match = _STABLE_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
> > -????return match and get_base_ver_stable_branch(match.group(1))
> > +????if 'cip' in branch_name:
> > +????????match = _CIP_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
> > +????????return match and get_base_ver_cip_branch(match.group(1))
> > +????else:
> > +????????match = _STABLE_BRANCH_RE.match(branch_name)
> > +????????return match and get_base_ver_stable_branch(match.group(1))
> 
> [...]
> 
> Does this function actually need to know anything about specific branch
> names???It seems like we should be able to implement it as something
> like:
> 
> ????for branch in?get_live_branches():
> ????????if branch['short_name'] == branch_name:
> ????????????return branch
> ????return None

In fact it would probably make more sense to get rid of this function
altogether and put that code in reported_affected.py, which can avoid
calling get_live_branches() multiple times.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Software Developer                ?        Codethink Ltd
https://www.codethink.co.uk/                 Dale House, 35 Dale Street
                                     Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom