Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder2.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:52:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.554.1358292312.2939.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=74.61.37.162; posting-account=j77mzQ8AAAANT_vs79yTKlJVSM4DQEXi
References: <mailman.554.1358292312.2939.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Is there a more elegant way to handle determing fail status?
From: donarb <donarb@nwlink.com>
To: comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Python List <python-list@python.org>
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <mailman.555.1358293973.2939.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 201
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:36876

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:24:44 PM UTC-8, J wrote:
> Ok, so I have a diagnostic tool, written by someone else. That tool
>=20
> runs a series of small tests defined by the user and can simplified
>=20
> summary output that can be one of the following:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> FAILED_CRITICAL
>=20
> FAILED_HIGH
>=20
> FAILED_MEDIUM
>=20
> FAILED_LOW
>=20
> PASSED
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I also have a wrapper script I wrote to run these tests, summarize the
>=20
> results of all tests aggregated and then fail based on a particular
>=20
> fail level.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The idea is that if I run 3 tests with the diagnostic tool and it
>=20
> tells me the following:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> testA: PASSED
>=20
> testB: FAILED_MEDIUM
>=20
> testC: PASSED
>=20
>=20
>=20
> AND I told the wrapper to only fail on HIGH or above, the wrapper will
>=20
> tell me that I had a medium failure, but the wrapper will still exit
>=20
> with a 0 (success)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> if I get the same results as above, but tell the wrapper to fail on
>=20
> LOW, then it will tell me I had that medium failure, but the wrapper
>=20
> will exit with a 1 (failure).
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The problem is that my exit determination looks like this:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>     if fail_priority =3D=3D fail_levels['FAILED_CRITICAL']:
>=20
>         if critical_fails:
>=20
>             return 1
>=20
>     if fail_priority =3D=3D fail_levels['FAILED_HIGH']:
>=20
>         if critical_fails or high_fails:
>=20
>             return 1
>=20
>     if fail_priority =3D=3D fail_levels['FAILED_MEDIUM']:
>=20
>         if critical_fails or high_fails or medium_fails:
>=20
>             return 1
>=20
>     if fail_priority =3D=3D fail_levels['FAILED_LOW']:
>=20
>         if critical_fails or high_fails or medium_fails or low_fails:
>=20
>             return 1
>=20
>=20
>=20
>     return 0
>=20
>=20
>=20
> So, to explain the above... the fail level can be set by the user when
>=20
> running the wrapper using -f (or it defaults to 'high')
>=20
> the wrapper assigns a number to each level using this:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>     # Set correct fail level
>=20
>     args.fail_level =3D 'FAILED_%s' % args.fail_level.upper()
>=20
>=20
>=20
>     # Get our failure priority and create the priority values
>=20
>     fail_levels =3D {'FAILED_CRITICAL':4,
>=20
>                    'FAILED_HIGH':3,
>=20
>                    'FAILED_MEDIUM':2,
>=20
>                    'FAILED_LOW':1}
>=20
>     fail_priority =3D fail_levels[args.fail_level]
>=20
>=20
>=20
> the variables critical_fails, high_fails, medium_fails, low_fails are
>=20
> all counters that are etiher None, or the number of tests that were
>=20
> failed.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> So using this output from the diagnostic tool:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> testA: PASSED
>=20
> testB: FAILED_HIGH
>=20
> testC: PASSED
>=20
> testD: FAILED_MEDIUM
>=20
> testE: PASSED
>=20
>=20
>=20
> critical_fails would be None
>=20
> high_fails would be 1
>=20
> medium_fails would be 1
>=20
> low_fails would be None.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The exit code determination above works, but it just feels inelegant.
>=20
> It feels like there's a better way of implementing that, but I can't
>=20
> come up with one that still honors the fail level properly (e.g. other
>=20
> solutions will fail on medium, but won't fail properly on medium OR
>=20
> higher).
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I can provide the full script if necessary, if the above isn't enough
>=20
> to point me in a direction that has a better way of doing this...
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Thanks for looking,
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Jeff

My back of the envelope coding would do it this way. Use an array of fail_c=
ounters, with PASSED as the first element all the way up to FAILED_CRITICAL=
 as the last element. Then use a simple loop starting from index fail_prior=
ity to the end of the list looking for errors. Like this:

# Array of fail counters
fail_counters =3D [
    0,  # PASSED
    0,  # LOW
    0,  # MEDIUM
    0,  # HIGH
    0   # CRITICAL
]

... run tests, accumulate error counts in fail_counters

for i in range(fail_priority, len(fail_counters)):
    if fail_counters[i]:
        return 1
return 0