Allow users to provide a filesystem path to a Python file for callbacks #159
Labels
enhancement
New feature or request
Comments
jeremycline
added a commit
to jeremycline/fedora-messaging
that referenced
this issue
Apr 17, 2019
Previously, the callback needed to reside on the Python Path, which is convenient if you're already making a Python package. Plenty of folks aren't, though, so allow users to provide a file that we'll boldly exec and load a callback from. Fixes fedora-infra#159 Signed-off-by: Jeremy Cline <jcline@redhat.com>
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 16, 2019
Previously, the callback needed to reside on the Python Path, which is convenient if you're already making a Python package. Plenty of folks aren't, though, so allow users to provide a file that we'll boldly exec and load a callback from. Fixes #159 Signed-off-by: Jeremy Cline <jcline@redhat.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Currently, the callback must be in the PYTHONPATH and is specified by "package.module:function" in the configuration. This is convenient when you already have the function in the Python path and the callback is part of a bigger project.
However, for one-off scripts it's more convenient to provide a path to the file (some/python/file.py:function) than it is to make a Python package for the callback alone.
We should add support to the consume CLI to accept a filesystem path as well as a Python path. It'll need to differentiate the two types. If a relative path is given to a file in the current directory (e.g. "callback.py:my_function") we can't tell the difference between the PYTHONPATH variety and the filesystem path, so I think we should always default to first trying the PYTHONPATH, then falling back to interpreting it as a filesystem path, then failing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: