Hi, On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm doing this on a per-koha-script basis. For the task I'm revisiting each koha-* command to avoid messing with option switches combinations. I've already found some tiny problems (mostly poor error handling).
Thanks for taking this on.
I'd like you to (1) tell me if its ok that I patch them in bash (which is what they are written in) and (2) if you have the time, discuss here the current and desired semantics for those commands, including the option switches.
bash is fine, unless they get so complicated that they would be easier to understand in Perl. :)
As of (1) I've already started working that way (provided patches for koha-list and koha-enable already[2]). But I will understand I "should have asked first".
That's fine -- a patch can serve as a nicely concrete way of asking a question. It's only an issue if the submitter *demands* that the answer is always going to be yes (i.e., that the patch is accepted and pushed).
[2] http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10094
What you propose for koha-list seems reasonable to me.
http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10101
Ditto for koha-enable. My biggest desideratum for these scripts is that koha-create be atomic -- in other words, that it either completely succeed, or if it fails, completely clean up after itself so that it can be re-run cleanly after the underlying problem is fixed. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: gmc@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & http://evergreen-ils.org