|Summary:||doc: Expected order of actions not documented for dnf.callback.TransactionProgress|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Martin Kolman <mkolman>|
|Status:||CLOSED ERRATA||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||26||CC:||jmracek, mkolman, packaging-team-maint, rpm-software-management, vmukhame|
|Target Milestone:||---||Keywords:||Documentation, EasyFix, Triaged|
|Fixed In Version:||dnf-2.2.0-1.fc26||Doc Type:||If docs needed, set a value|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2017-04-01 17:22:27 UTC||Type:||Bug|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Martin Kolman 2017-01-09 17:22:44 UTC
Description of problem: The progress() method of the TransactionProgress class works with a number of "action" constants: http://dnf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api_callback.html#dnf.callback.TransactionProgress.progress As the action constants correspond to events that might happen during a transaction it can be expected that that also the constants (or at least some of them) can only show up in some order. Eq. PKG_INSTALL for a package will always show up before PKG_VERIFY, TRANS_POST shows up at the very end, etc. But the action/constant order is currently not documented, which might complicate usage of this API. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Read the docs: Revision e5d2e280. How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. go to the DNF callback documentation: http://dnf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api_callback.html#dnf.callback.TransactionProgress.progress 2. try to find out the order of the action constants Actual results: The order of the action constants is currently not documented. Expected results: The order of the action constants is documented, so API users can make current assumptions when writing their code.
Comment 1 Martin Kolman 2017-01-09 17:23:29 UTC
A small typo in the description: "users can make *cprrect* assumptions when writing their code."
Comment 2 Martin Kolman 2017-01-09 17:24:13 UTC
(In reply to Martin Kolman from comment #1) > A small typo in the description: "users can make *cprrect* assumptions when > writing their code." *correct* :P
Comment 3 Honza Silhan 2017-01-09 17:26:37 UTC
We will improve the doc. It should be done together with bug 1411423.
Comment 4 Honza Silhan 2017-01-16 12:20:32 UTC
we should revert dnf commit which removes RPM callbacks.
Comment 5 Fedora End Of Life 2017-02-28 10:54:54 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 26 development cycle. Changing version to '26'.
Comment 6 Jaroslav Mracek 2017-03-17 13:26:28 UTC
I tried to fulfill your request. Here is pull request: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/763.
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2017-03-27 19:21:11 UTC
dnf-2.2.0-1.fc26, libdnf-0.8.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-65586fa42b
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2017-04-01 17:22:27 UTC
dnf-2.2.0-1.fc26, libdnf-0.8.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.