search for: workflows

...RSpec specifications are a good solution for testing REST webservices (not implemented in Rails). If so, what would be a good way to test something like the API described below? =========== GET http://localhost/workflow text/xml Result: 200 OK <?xml version="1.0"?> <workflows> <workflow>flow1</workflow> <workflow>flow2</workflow> <workflow>flow3</workflow> </workflows> POST http://localhost/workflow?name=flow4 text/xml Data: <?xml version="1.0"?> <workflow>...

...RSpec specifications are a good solution for testing REST webservices (not implemented in Rails). If so, what would be a good way to test something like the API described below? =========== GET http://localhost/workflow text/xml Result: 200 OK <?xml version="1.0"?> <workflows> <workflow>flow1</workflow> <workflow>flow2</workflow> <workflow>flow3</workflow> </workflows> POST http://localhost/workflow?name=flow4 text/xml Data: <?xml version="1.0"?> <workflow>...

Hello, I am relativley new to Ruby on Rails and am still in the process of enjoying the features it offers. I wanted to know if theres workflow support in rails. Can some one give me pointers if its possible. Thanks Naveen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060305/43c9abc3/attachment.html

Hello R-users, I am interested to know if there is a tool that allows us to build SAS Enterprise Miner like workflows using the R scripts. For example, let's say I have the R scripts/functions for the following tasks: 1. Data Cleaning 2. Model Building 3. Model Validation 4. Visualization I would like to drag these functions into a workflow and run them together (output of one function becomes input for the...

On 19 August 2016 at 19:35, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > I think you misunderstood what I meant here. Whether "moving to git" > will affect my workflow depends very much on "how we're moving to > git". That's exactly what I understood. :) > For example, if we do a monorepo, I may now need to lay code out > differently on my

Is there any project or solution for an easy integration of a WFE / WfMS into rails? I''m quite new to this topic, but I probably need a small subset of workflow patterns (or whatever the correct term is) only. Any pointers are welcome. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Now that we have switched to git and I had to leave behind my wonderfully simple svn workflow I have noticed something curious when committing. My typical workflow once my patch is approved on Phabricator has always been: - Update my source tree to latest - Apply the approved patch - Rebuild - Retest - If all is well, commit Having to update again after rebuilding/retesting was extremely rare

...se Git, I wonder > why large complex projects like the Linux kernel, Wine, MinGW-w64, > GHC and many many others don't seem to have any major problems using > Git. Lots of projects are also happy with Mercurial, or BZR, or even CVS. Every open source community has its own established workflows by which developers interact with and ultimately contribute to the mainline repository. Those workflows, and the common use cases that lead to them, strongly impact what specific SCM arrangements will or will not work. To take the Linux kernel as an example, they use a very different integration...

...t CLI is a case study in poor UI design and so people have been far more motivated to write GUIs than for svn). > > David And they almost always leave out big chunks of functionality that are important for several use cases. Basically, they figure out the commands needed for a small set of workflows, ensure the best case works, then stop there. Coming from a perforce and SVN background, I think this is understandable. With perforce and SVN, you just don't have as many options and possible workflows, so they tend to be a little easier to learn, and a lot easier to wrap in a UI on the...

Hi folks, I've been involved in Syslinux since 14 years and been almost off for many years for multiple reasons. I'm currently trying to recover and while observing the project with a little of distance I noticed the following : - project's activity is pretty low - patches sent to the mailing list (ML) are not likely to be reviewed - Integration workflow is pretty unclear - release

>On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: >> I think we should start two other threads: one about git tooling on Windows >> and one about infrastructure problems migrating to git. > >Some developers on Windows prefer to use GUI tools like TortoiseSVN to >command line tools for version control. The last time I tried

...epo can be hidden via > sparse checkouts, as we've discussed. > > Maybe I am wrong. But I don't think we're going to get to the bottom > of it without actually engaging with people who are actually affected > in the way you posit. > > > Ok, let me describe a few workflows I’ve used in the last year that are (in > my mind) adversely impacted by a mono-repo. > > Case Study 1 - Simple development on a sub-project > > I build LLVM + Clang + Compiler-RT using the just-built Clang to build > Compiler-RT. I iterate on some complicated Compiler-RT changes...

Hi, I would like to join a samba 4.2.0 file server sitting in a branch office, with connection only to a RODC (and only the RODC can talk to the RWDC). Was wondering what's the workflow for doing this in samba. For Windows machines, Microsoft seems to have planned two workflows for this: 1. Use new flag to NetJoinDomain() API to join using the RODC (https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd728035%28v=ws.10%29.aspx#run_join_script). With this workflow, the machine account is created on the domain, then what seems to happen is that admin credentials towards the RODC...

...atch is pushed as a single commit. I do not want to merge my local 'patchbranch' into my local 'master' because I want to keep my local 'master' clean and always identical to, or only slightly behind, the upstream branch. I have read the documentation but all the described workflows seem to imply the use of svn at some point, which I do not want to, or know how to use. I understand this is a basic question but I used git before with small teams only, so a detailed workflow for LLVM commits using git alone would be appreciated. Thanks, John

On 8/19/16 4:50 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev wrote: > Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> writes: >> On 19 August 2016 at 19:35, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: >>> I think you misunderstood what I meant here. Whether "moving to git" >>> will affect my workflow depends very much on "how we're moving to >>>

...iscussed. >>> >>> Maybe I am wrong. But I don't think we're going to get to the bottom >>> of it without actually engaging with people who are actually affected >>> in the way you posit. >>> >>> >>> Ok, let me describe a few workflows I’ve used in the last year that are (in >>> my mind) adversely impacted by a mono-repo. >>> >>> Case Study 1 - Simple development on a sub-project >>> >>> I build LLVM + Clang + Compiler-RT using the just-built Clang to build >>> Compiler-RT....

There is a Fedora Activity Day (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAD_Documentation_2016 ) centered around documentation, where I'm going to see what can be done about the state of centos documentation from upstream sources. Most of the tooling for documentation for these two groups is centered around git. For the most part, our documentation currently lives in the wiki, and has a fairly high

> After git, mainline will still be the most important branch for the > *project*, > but you will work with quite a few branches on parallel. > > Who's mainline? :) Be prepared to assign a super-merger, like Linus, to maintain the "mainline". The git workflow works really really great, but it does require getting rid of mainline thinking. It doesn't exist.

Hi LLVM community, As discussed earlier, we in the clangd land feel that buganizer does not address the clangd's needs as a bug-tracking system. In our previous attempt to raise this on llvm-dev [1] we shared our idea to put the clangd issue tracker on GitHub. The participants raised multiple concerns, including the migration costs, whether GitHub is the right choice as an issue tracker,

On 29 Jul 2016, at 05:11, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > What I meant by “different problem" is that “downstream users” for instance don’t need to commit, that makes their problem/workflow quite different from an upstream developer (for instance it is fairly easy to maintain a read-only view of the existing individual git repo currently on