On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:09:57AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > See comments below. > > <snip> > >> + # Here start the lv_check_functions >> + # Before we dare to create an lv device we check for stuff. Gather all >> + # the checkfunctions in inner functions and put them in a list. This >> + # decouples the check functions from the creating device stuff. For >> + # all the checks True means pass and False means Fail. >> + def lv_check_validadte_name(*args, **kwargs): > > Spelling: "lv_check_validadte_name" ? (You have been consistent > in this, so its not a syntax problem). good catch. did not see this. > > <snip> > >> + for func in lv_checks: >> + if not func(*[], **kwargs): >> + Falied = True > > spelling, real error this time Falied -> failed. Yep, another good catch note to self. don't do last minute untested changes !!!! > >> + if failed: >> continue >> > > Other then that it looks good, > > Regards, > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > Anaconda-devel-list mailing list > Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list -- Joel Andres Granados Brno, Czech Republic, Red Hat. _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
