Merge lp:~abentley/launchpad/storm-sprint-queries into lp:launchpad
| Status: | Merged |
|---|---|
| Merged at revision: | 16057 |
| Proposed branch: | lp:~abentley/launchpad/storm-sprint-queries |
| Merge into: | lp:launchpad |
| Prerequisite: | lp:~abentley/launchpad/new-tests |
| Diff against target: |
306 lines (+91/-88) 5 files modified
lib/lp/blueprints/browser/tests/test_sprint.py (+1/-1) lib/lp/blueprints/model/specification.py (+18/-0) lib/lp/blueprints/model/sprint.py (+53/-81) lib/lp/blueprints/templates/specificationtarget-assignments.pt (+4/-4) lib/lp/services/database/stormexpr.py (+15/-2) |
| To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~abentley/launchpad/storm-sprint-queries |
| Related bugs: |
| Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| j.c.sackett (community) | 2012-09-27 | Approve on 2012-09-27 | |
|
Review via email:
|
|||
Commit Message
Convert Sprint.
Description of the Change
= Summary =
Update Sprint.
== Pre-implementation notes ==
None
== LOC Rationale ==
Part of private projects
== Implementation details ==
Convert Sprint.
Reduce the signature of specificationLinks to those values that are actually used.
Tweak specificationta
Implement stormexpr.
== Tests ==
bin/test test_sprint
== Demo and Q/A ==
The sprint pages should work, and should list relevant blueprints.
= Launchpad lint =
Checking for conflicts and issues in changed files.
Linting changed files:
lib/lp/
lib/lp/
lib/lp/
lib/lp/
lib/lp/
lib/lp/
lib/lp/
| Aaron Bentley (abentley) wrote : | # |
> This looks alright, but I'm not sure I see the value in the completeness
> expression being a class method on the Specification class--it seems like
> something that could just be defined as a clause separately in that code
Which code? Sprint.
> rather than a class method, and then used as needed. Is there some other
> reason for this implementation?
I thought it was valuable to have it directly underneath the non-Storm version, Specification.
> Also: I concur with the lack of a need for an explicit implementation for
> Priority, but that should probably be added in a comment in the relevant block
> of code.
There is a comment:
212 + # fall back to default, which is priority, descending.
Does it need improvement?
| j.c.sackett (jcsackett) wrote : | # |
Ah, I missed that there was a precedent for the storm_completeness class method. Given that, I concur with your reasoning.
The comment is fine--I must have just missed it when reading through.

This looks alright, but I'm not sure I see the value in the completeness expression being a class method on the Specification class--it seems like something that could just be defined as a clause separately in that code rather than a class method, and then used as needed. Is there some other reason for this implementation?
Also: I concur with the lack of a need for an explicit implementation for Priority, but that should probably be added in a comment in the relevant block of code.