On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 17:26 +0200, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Attached are fixes for ldap.LDAPObject.add_s(self, dn, modlist) uses > > which now don't pass 'make-lint' on Fedora 16/Rawhide. > > > > -- > > / Alexander Bokovoy > > > >From dd866262c98be779a094a617975145e2fb1e0dd1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Alexander Bokovoy <[email protected]> > > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:21:17 +0200 > > Subject: [PATCH] Be more explicit when passing Entry class to > > ldap.LDAPObject.add_s() > > > > ldap.LDAPObject.add_s(self, dn, modlist) requires two positional arguments. > > We used to pass our Entry class which implements dictionary access that > > gives > > proper way to pass the positional arguments, but PyLint in Fedora 16/Rawhide > > became more strict about that and can't infer dictionary interface through > > static checking. > > > > Thus, we need to explicitly annotate dictionary passing with **entry syntax. > > This has additional benefit to remind that we deal with multiple arguments > > here. > Self-NACK, doesn't really work this way. I'm still looking at better > approach but intermediate solution is to use pylint hints. > > Conservative patch is attached. >
What about other add_s(entry) calls? I see we call it this way on more places, especially in replication.py: $ git grep "add_s(e" ipaserver/install/cainstance.py: ld.add_s(entry_dn, entry) ipaserver/install/krbinstance.py: self.admin_conn.add_s(entry) #pylint: disable=E1120 ipaserver/install/krbinstance.py: self.admin_conn.add_s(entry) #pylint: disable=E1120 ipaserver/install/replication.py: conn.add_s(ent) ipaserver/install/replication.py: conn.add_s(entry) ipaserver/install/replication.py: conn.add_s(entry) ipaserver/install/replication.py: self.conn.add_s(entry) ipaserver/install/replication.py: conn.add_s(entry) ipaserver/install/replication.py: a_conn.add_s(entry) ipaserver/install/replication.py: self.conn.add_s(entry) ipaserver/install/service.py: conn.add_s(entry) #pylint: disable=E1120 Should we patch ipa-2-1 branch as well? If we do another release for F-16 we want to have pylint check clean. We would need a rebased patch for ipa-2-1 branch in this case. Martin _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
