Re: udd/blends_metadata_gathener.py hints
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 01:33:44AM +0300, Emmanouil Kiagias wrote:
> Hello Andreas,
> When I try to run the the udd/blends_metadata_gathener.py locally for some
> testing I get:
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "./local.udd.py", line 86, in <module>
> exec "gatherer.%s()" % command
> File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
> File "/home/alamages/Projects/udd/udd/blends_metadata_gatherer.py", line
> 217, in run
> psycopg2.ProgrammingError: column "metapackage_name" of relation
> "blends_tasks" does not exist
> LINE 1: ...n, enhances, leaf, test_always_lang, metapackage, metapackag...
> Although the "metapackage_name" field in blends_tasks table is defined in
> udd/sql/setup.sql it does not appear into UDD latest dump either in UDD
> instance in udd.debian.org.
> Once I removed the "metapackage_name" from the blends_metadata_gatherer.py
> everything worked fine.
> Any ideas why the UDD schema is missing this field?
Yes, that's simple: Because I not yet updated the UDD table. ;-)
It probably got lost in my pre-vacation time. I was always working on a
local copy with the new table layout applied so I did not noticed this.
This is fixed now.
> Also in order to test the gatheners locally with udd/udd.py I do for example
> ./udd.py CONF_FILE COMMAND SOURCE(eg blends-metadata)
> In order to make the importer capable to import a single Blend how should
> we provide the wanted single Blend as an option? Should we provide it as an
> extra option along with the SOURCE argument or through the CONF_FILE?
This is a really good question which I did not thought about. From first
intuition I would think it might make sense to add single paragraphs to
the configfile, like
The blends-all option should show the current behaviour to update all
Blends as we are doing now. I think using a paragraph inside the config
file makes sense since even if you want to use the SOURCE parameter you
also need to refer to a config file anyway and IMHO there is no point to
use a different config file.
It might make sense to discuss this on debian-qa list but the
responsiveness to UDD design questions is traditionally low and you
might need to use your Do-O-cracy powers to decide on your own.