Merge lp://staging/~brendan-donegan/checkbox/verification_interaction_jobs into lp://staging/checkbox

Awesome!

I can suggest a simplification (actually Marc did a few months ago):

you just have to register handlers with the appropriate regex. in the manual_test plugin: ("prompt-(manual|interactive|verification|monkey)", self.prompt_manual),

This should remove the need for the plugin_alias method and simplify a few other lines of the code, as well as keeping the definitions of the types of jobs each plugin can handle in the plugin itself, which I think is slightly cleaner.

I'll set this as Needs Fixing but this is certainly not set in stone, if you prefer your approach I'm OK.

Unfortunately it seems Marc was potentially talking about a non-existent 'feature' - Reactor.fire() just does the following to get the handler for the event:

handlers = self._event_handlers.get(event_type, ())

Just a simple dictionary lookup, no regexes involved. We could debate the merits of using pattern matching on signal handlers here (more flexible, put potentially slower), or we could just go with what works now.

Oh, and I'm not just speculating - registering the event handler for prompt_manual as you mentioned doesn't work.

Oh OK, I didn't try that, if your solution works and mine doesn't, we go with yours :)

Er, one more thing :( Do you think this will work (in plugins/manual_test.py):

for (rt, rh) in [
             ("prompt-manual", self.prompt_manual),
             ("prompt-verification", self.prompt_manual),
             ("prompt-interaction", self.prompt_manual),
             ("report-manual", self.report_manual),
             ("report-verification", self.report_manual)
             ("report-interaction", self.report_manual)]:
            self._manager.reactor.call_on(rt, rh)

The idea being, as I said before, keeping the knowledge about which kind of events a plugin can handle in the plugin itself.

I did it the verbose way for illustration purposes, I'm sure it can be shortened by clever loop use.

This is my last comment, I promise we'll go with whatever you reply next :)

This does work - I haven't tried to be fancy with loops or anything. I think it will just complicate the statement and save only a couple of lines at most. Thanks for the suggestion!

OK then, as promised, approving this. Thanks!