From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <Tim.Bird@sony.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Sony.onmicrosoft.com; 
	s=selector1-Sony-onmicrosoft-com;
	h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version;
	bh=29iyTEeFFqo2KvJg+qkvGCWQrbAqU1aXFXKoretnugU=;
	b=k4vsNKB6uka1ozEflDV+yRXO19MAfEYzbsfqY71GCmZdUv6egw9+9Dawcd3JgOk2gt6mvajvC7KYNSNfldZsYyj5K+grGLl3rpCeY07VBFb/A6m5GZAdqIUUMVTH2sI1S63LF4FJwdH+gidLExuy1tDRHPemWhfrO7GSbw10atw=
From: <Tim.Bird@sony.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 20:22:40 +0000
Message-ID: <ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF64487628@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com>
References: <20180329000832.12268-1-guicc@profusion.mobi>
	<20180329000832.12268-2-guicc@profusion.mobi>
	<ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF64486F79@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com>
	<20180403031743.ua6qx6xdnmqhkpkm@guicc-arch-three>
In-Reply-To: <20180403031743.ua6qx6xdnmqhkpkm@guicc-arch-three>
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Fuego] [PATCH 01/16] Add fuego-release Functional test
List-Id: Mailing list for the Fuego test framework
	<fuego.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/fuego>,
	<mailto:fuego-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/fuego/>
List-Post: <mailto:fuego@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fuego-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fuego>,
	<mailto:fuego-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
To: guicc@profusion.mobi
Cc: fuego@lists.linuxfoundation.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guilherme Camargo
>=20
> Hello, Tim. Thanks for the the review of this patch.
>=20
> I'm implementing most of your comments. Please see a few comments
> inline.
>=20
> Also, regarding the string formatting operations - the newer method
> str.format() VS the legacy version % - I think we should consider
> keeping the newer method for the following reasons:
>=20
>    1. Python documentation encourages the use of the new method
>    (str.format()) instead of the old method - as we can see here
> https://docs.python.org/release/3.1.5/library/stdtypes.html#old-string-
> formatting-operations
>=20
>    2. There are a few advantages of using this new method for complex
>    string formatting, specially when a value is used multiple times in
>    the string as in:
>=20
>    ```
>    161 COMMAND_OUTPUT_PATTERN =3D re.compile(
>    162     r'^{0}(.*){0}\s+{1}'.format(
>    163         COMMAND_OUTPUT_DELIM, BASH_PATTERN), re.M | re.S)
>    ```
>=20
>    or
>=20
>    ```
>    191             "echo '{0}${{{1}}}{0}'".format(
>    192                 self.COMMAND_OUTPUT_DELIM,
>    193                 self.OUTPUT_VARIABLE))
>    ```
>=20
>    Also, I checked and we're using the newer method consistently
>    throughout the test.
>=20
> But it's your call, no problem if you still prefer using '%', please
> just let me know and I can make the change if that's the case.

My personal preference is to use the % format operator, and the
%s-style formatting strings.  I also use C, and it is a little easier on
my brain to not have to remember 2 different formatting syntaxes.

Please change them.

Thanks,
 -- Tim