HUE-1858 [oozie] "Could not save workflow" error message requires substantially more information

Review Request #4120 — Created Feb. 10, 2014 and submitted

abec
old-hue-rw
HUE-1858, HUE-1874
hue
enricoberti, romain
commit 0aa4259585d5757b1c3f4ac8a3387f5693227dbb
Author: Abraham Elmahrek <abraham@elmahrek.com>
Date:   Mon Feb 10 15:00:37 2014 -0800

    HUE-1858 [oozie] "Could not save workflow" error message requires substantially more information
    
    Also fix 3 tier graph with decisions and forks.
    Improve general error handling.

:100644 100644 fe09255... 69477f0... M  apps/oozie/src/oozie/templates/editor/edit_workflow.mako
:100644 100644 6a0a00d... ab39a73... M  apps/oozie/src/oozie/tests.py
:100644 100644 bf8f44e... 5b226e6... M  apps/oozie/src/oozie/views/api.py
:100644 100644 efdfb63... d5c6913... M  apps/oozie/static/js/workflow.js
Verified 3 tier graph as described in HUE-1874.
Before fixing HUE-1874, verified broken state uses proper error messaging.
Added a couple of tests to verify error codes.
Tried creating a node w/ error, importing a node w/ error, and saving a workflow w/ error.
  • 0
  • 0
  • 4
  • 0
  • 4
Description From Last Updated
abec
romain
  1. Nice!
    
    And I would rather keep the traceback out of the end user view ;)
  2. cf. comment below
  3. apps/oozie/src/oozie/tests.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Are we just failing because we did a POST instead of GET? (we could test with a real exception a bit like test_workflow_fail, e.g. call to Oozie just fails?)
    1. You're right. I'll see what I can manage in terms of tests there.
  4. apps/oozie/src/oozie/tests.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
  5. apps/oozie/src/oozie/views/api.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Do we really need the tb as the trace is in the /logs ? (and we should not show it to the end user)
    1. Good point. Will remove.
  6. 
      
abec
abec
Review request changed

Status: Closed (submitted)

Loading...