Created attachment 1133144 [details] Partial support for PURPOSE file tags + bkrdoc-authorship in default skeleton Description of problem: bkrdoc project is now available for generating test documentation automatically: https://github.com/rh-lab-q/bkrdoc We would like PURPOSE file to be managed by bkrdoc through life cycle of the test, but still left possibility for users to manage it manually. Therefore we propose bkrdoc-authorship tag for PURPOSE file, presence of which would mean PURPOSE file could be regenerated by bkrdoc. So there are 2 parts: 1) general PURPOSE file tag feature: I propose this general format for PURPOSE file tags: Tags: tag1 tag2 ... tagX This feature could be implemented similarly as for bug 857090. I already created a partial working patch for it (attached). 2) bkrdoc-authorship tag in default beakerlib skeleton Users who want to manage PURPOSE file manually should ask wizard to not include the tag via option or simply delete the Tag line from PURPOSE when editing it. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): beaker-client-22.1-1.el7sed.noarch
Some more details regarding the patch. What is missing: - commandline options for setting tags - ability to modify tags in interactive session - bkrdoc-authorship tag for example templates I think it can be easily finished by looking into patch attached in bug 857090, but I am running out of time at this moment: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1133144 Thank you for considering this feature as I believe it can bring significant value.
Please, can you take a look, consider this RFE and give us some ETA proposal? Thanks in advance.
Dear David, I had a look at your patch this morning. There is quite substantial work involved to finish the feature. Unfortunately, the original maintainer is not working on beaker-wizard any more and our team is already stretched thin. I think your RFE is sound in that, it would be a nice to have an integration with bkrdoc. I don't see any chance however that one of us could pick up the patch and finish it. Apart from the integration work you mentioned in Comment 1, we will also have to add a set of tests to make sure it is working and not regressing. If someone else would like to pick up this patch and finish it, we'd be happy to add the tests. If it's entirely up to our team (we are three), I don't see us working on it in the near future. Perhaps something for a rainy day.
New team agrees with what Roman said. I'm lowering the priority.