Skip to content
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

'entry' vs 'request' in staging APIs #8542

Closed
coolo opened this issue Oct 8, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #8574
Closed

'entry' vs 'request' in staging APIs #8542

coolo opened this issue Oct 8, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #8574
Assignees
Labels
Bug staging-workflow Things related to the staging workflow feature

Comments

@coolo
Copy link
Member

coolo commented Oct 8, 2019

/staging_projects has <entry id= and /excluded_requests has <request id=. I see no reason why this would be different - and I prefer <request/>

@coolo coolo added the staging-workflow Things related to the staging workflow feature label Oct 8, 2019
@hennevogel hennevogel added the Bug label Oct 8, 2019
@vpereira vpereira self-assigned this Oct 12, 2019
@vpereira
Copy link
Contributor

@coolo we have the entry to other elements too, i.e missing_reviews and broken_packages. Any strong opinion/suggestion about them?

@coolo
Copy link
Member Author

coolo commented Oct 14, 2019

everything reprenting a request should be request - and for broken_package entry could be fine, but then I wonder why it's

  <missing_checks count="2">
    <missing_check name="openqa:cryptlvm" state="pending" required="true"/>
    <missing_check name="installcheck" state="pending" required="true"/>
  </missing_checks>

Either it's entry there too - or it's broken_packages/broken_package

@hennevogel
Copy link
Member

Everything that is a request should be <request...>, everything that is a package should be <package...>.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Bug staging-workflow Things related to the staging workflow feature
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants