-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 209
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
cime5 lost some functionality in cs.status that was in cimeteststatus #293
Comments
For:
we could just give cs.status an option saying what testid(s) to aggregate over, rather than having a separate cs.status file for each testid. |
As a temporary workaround I have a script in CLM (currently on the esmci branch clm4_5_8_r174_esmciport) that replicates the functionality of cimeteststatus. @bandre-ucar. I'll take a look at the cimeteststatus in cime4 and make sure I replicate it's operation. |
@ekluzek, can you point me to your script in clm4_5_8_r174_esmciport that replicates the functionality. |
Yes it's at the top level, above the cime directory. The name starts with On Sep 26, 2016 2:48 PM, "fischer-ncar" notifications@github.com wrote:
|
Is this still an issue? |
Yes, I'm still working on it. |
@fischer-ncar are you still working on this? Would like to assign to @jgfouca . |
I want to be working on it, but haven't had the time. You can go ahead and assign it to @jgfouca. |
cime5 lost some of the functionality in cs.status that was in the prior cimeteststatus. cimeteststatus was written in python, so adding some of this functionality back might not be that hard to do.
1.) cs.status requires you to cd to test directory
2.) cs.status doesn't allow helpful arguments like help
3.) cs.status doesn't have an option to combine test Id's together or specify a given test ID with a "-i" option
4.) cs.status removes the "-s" summary option, which made it easier to parse for fails
I also think the creation of the bash script for the specific test ID in the test directory is a bit awkward (the cs.status. scripts). Number "3" above is a better handling of this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: