No problem. I had left it in status "work in progress" until recently too.
>
> 8 +class AttributeError(Exception):
>
> Could we avoid re-defining a standard exception, that's only going to lead to confusion.
That's my mistake, didn't check for a standard exception with that
name. Removed.
> 59 + set_bugtask_milestone(bug.bug_tasks[0:2][-1], milestone)
>
> Like Mattias I am uneasy about this, it looks very fragile. Is there
> some rule you can verbalise about which task is needed at this point?
> If so then we can try and code that up, rather than relying on ordering
> of the tasks here.
That rule should be to use the only bug_task if no series has been
nominated, and to use the bug_task that actually is targeted to the
specified series otherwise. Trivial now that I think about it, thanks.
:) I've changed this as well.
> Sorry for the delay in reviewing this.
No problem. I had left it in status "work in progress" until recently too. Exception) :
>
> 8 +class AttributeError(
>
> Could we avoid re-defining a standard exception, that's only going to lead to confusion.
That's my mistake, didn't check for a standard exception with that
name. Removed.
> 59 + set_bugtask_ milestone( bug.bug_ tasks[0: 2][-1], milestone)
>
> Like Mattias I am uneasy about this, it looks very fragile. Is there
> some rule you can verbalise about which task is needed at this point?
> If so then we can try and code that up, rather than relying on ordering
> of the tasks here.
That rule should be to use the only bug_task if no series has been
nominated, and to use the bug_task that actually is targeted to the
specified series otherwise. Trivial now that I think about it, thanks.
:) I've changed this as well.
Thanks,
Mattias