Merge lp://staging/~gary/launchpad/bug683115 into lp://staging/launchpad

Proposed by Gary Poster
Status: Merged
Approved by: Gary Poster
Approved revision: no longer in the source branch.
Merged at revision: 12013
Proposed branch: lp://staging/~gary/launchpad/bug683115
Merge into: lp://staging/launchpad
Diff against target: 251 lines (+95/-25)
3 files modified
lib/canonical/launchpad/doc/google-searchservice.txt (+48/-13)
lib/canonical/launchpad/ftests/googlesearches/googlesearchservice-negative-total.xml (+35/-0)
lib/canonical/launchpad/utilities/searchservice.py (+12/-12)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://staging/~gary/launchpad/bug683115
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Jeroen T. Vermeulen (community) Approve
Steve Kowalik (community) code* Approve
Review via email: mp+42322@code.staging.launchpad.net

Commit message

[r=jtv,stevenk][ui=none][bug=683115] Raise an error at the point that I believe it is entering our code base for bug 683115.

Description of the change

This branch raises an error at the point that I believe it is entering our code base for bug 683115. If I am right, then we will see the new error in the oops reports with the value that is causing the problem. We can then decided what to do about it.

An alternate approach would be to set the total to 0 and make an informative OOPS. I decided against that approach because I don't know if the Google results are actually causing the problem, and I did not want to introduce unnecessary band-aids until it was proven that we needed them. I don't feel very strongly about it.

This is a quick diagnostic branch, so I did not change the doctest (which is actually a decent one, I think).

On the other hand, I did correct all of what ``make lint`` complained about because it was quick. The downside there is that it adds a bunch of noise to the diff. The most questionable thing I did for lint's sake is to make searchservice.py not support old spelling of the elementtree import. I think it's fine.

Thank you

Gary

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Steve Kowalik (stevenk) wrote :

This looks like excellent work, thanks Gary!

review: Approve (code*)
Revision history for this message
Jeroen T. Vermeulen (jtv) wrote :

I concur. And Gary, thanks for cleaning up that lint along the way. (Though wow, do I hate ReST section headings!)

review: Approve

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.