Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects

Resolve "Make BaseRunner an abstract base class"

Merged Jorn Hoofwijk requested to merge 107-make-baserunner-an-abstract-base-class into master

Closes #107 (closed)

Edited by Jorn Hoofwijk

Merge request reports

Loading
Loading

Activity

Filter activity
  • Approvals
  • Assignees & reviewers
  • Comments (from bots)
  • Comments (from users)
  • Commits & branches
  • Edits
  • Labels
  • Lock status
  • Mentions
  • Merge request status
  • Tracking
  • Bas Nijholt
  • Bas Nijholt
  • mentioned in issue #106 (closed)

  • Jorn Hoofwijk added 1 commit

    added 1 commit

    • 667d35fb - change lambda back to function

    Compare with previous version

  • Jorn Hoofwijk resolved all discussions

    resolved all discussions

  • then it should be allright now I suppose?

  • Bas Nijholt added 13 commits

    added 13 commits

    Compare with previous version

  • Bas Nijholt added 1 commit

    added 1 commit

    • 5478f195 - make baserunner abstract with some abstract methods

    Compare with previous version

  • I don't think that we should do this. At the moment the Runner has sort of "evolved" (we put a bunch of common code in the base class to enable sharing) but we haven't done another design iteration.

    We need to look at the current use-cases of the runner to decide what it makes sense to have. Notably the addition of extra "meta" tasks (e.g. collecting runtime information), and how to support different running strategies.

    This merge request makes a set of choices about what all runners must provide, and I'm not sure that we want all of this.

    IMO we need to have a proper design meeting where we hash all this out

  • Considering that, let's remove it from the v0.6 milestone.

  • Bas Nijholt removed milestone

    removed milestone

  • Bas Nijholt added 63 commits

    added 63 commits

    Compare with previous version

  • Bas Nijholt added 1 commit

    added 1 commit

    Compare with previous version

  • @jbweston I made the changed we discussed in person. Merge if you like.

  • assigned to @jbweston

  • Loading
  • Loading
  • Loading
  • Loading
  • Loading
  • Loading
  • Loading
  • Loading
  • Loading
  • Loading
  • Please register or sign in to reply
    Loading