Parametereized classes

Development
1

Hi All,

we finally added a pull request [1] for adding param classes to foreman.

this patch is just the first step, but it should already be useful and
functional.

I'm posting it here for two main reasons:

  1. credit goes to the Yakaz team for the initial patch, especially to
    Oliver (aka TeKa).
  2. I would like to ask as many people to try it out / review the code etc
    as its fairly big chunk :slight_smile:

Thanks!
Ohad

[1] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/156/files

2

Yay! I've had a quick play with it, and it's already awesome. Big
thanks to all involved - this is a big step forward for us :slight_smile:

My smoke tests (replacing one of my wrapper classes with direct
foreman implementation) didn't show any bugs, so +1 on merge from me.

3

yay - merged eventually :slight_smile:

··· On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:

Yay! I’ve had a quick play with it, and it’s already awesome. Big
thanks to all involved - this is a big step forward for us :slight_smile:

My smoke tests (replacing one of my wrapper classes with direct
foreman implementation) didn’t show any bugs, so +1 on merge from me.

4

I wanted thank everyone for that big foreman feature.
Especially TeKa for all his work (despite his ruby … love ) and Amos and
Ohad for the review, rewrite and merging work.
Great job
\o/

··· 2012/9/24 Ohad Levy

yay - merged eventually :slight_smile:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Greg Sutcliffe greg.sutcliffe@gmail.comwrote:

Yay! I’ve had a quick play with it, and it’s already awesome. Big
thanks to all involved - this is a big step forward for us :slight_smile:

My smoke tests (replacing one of my wrapper classes with direct
foreman implementation) didn’t show any bugs, so +1 on merge from me.

5

> I wanted thank everyone for that big foreman feature.
> Especially TeKa for all his work (despite his ruby … love )
>
a big +1 from my side, TeKa thanks for pushing us forward!

Ohad

··· On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Romain Vrignaud wrote:

2012/9/24 Ohad Levy ohadlevy@gmail.com

yay - merged eventually :slight_smile:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Greg Sutcliffe <greg.sutcliffe@gmail.com >> > wrote:

Yay! I’ve had a quick play with it, and it’s already awesome. Big
thanks to all involved - this is a big step forward for us :slight_smile:

My smoke tests (replacing one of my wrapper classes with direct
foreman implementation) didn’t show any bugs, so +1 on merge from me.

6

You're welcome! :slight_smile:

··· 2012/9/26 Ohad Levy

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Romain Vrignaud rvrignaud@gmail.comwrote:

I wanted thank everyone for that big foreman feature.
Especially TeKa for all his work (despite his ruby … love )

a big +1 from my side, TeKa thanks for pushing us forward!

Ohad

2012/9/24 Ohad Levy ohadlevy@gmail.com

yay - merged eventually :slight_smile:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Greg Sutcliffe < >>> greg.sutcliffe@gmail.com> wrote:

Yay! I’ve had a quick play with it, and it’s already awesome. Big
thanks to all involved - this is a big step forward for us :slight_smile:

My smoke tests (replacing one of my wrapper classes with direct
foreman implementation) didn’t show any bugs, so +1 on merge from me.

7

++thanks++

I'm not running develop… should the stage metaparam work with this?

-Josh

··· -- On 09/26/2012 02:59 AM, Olivier Favre wrote: > You're welcome! :-) > > 2012/9/26 Ohad Levy <ohadlevy@gmail.com > > > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Romain Vrignaud > <rvrignaud@gmail.com > wrote: > > I wanted thank everyone for that big foreman feature. > Especially TeKa for all his work (despite his ruby ... love ) > > a big +1 from my side, TeKa thanks for pushing us forward! > > Ohad > > > > > > 2012/9/24 Ohad Levy <ohadlevy@gmail.com > > > yay - merged eventually :) > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Greg Sutcliffe > <greg.sutcliffe@gmail.com > > wrote: > > Yay! I've had a quick play with it, and it's already > awesome. Big > thanks to all involved - this is a big step forward for > us :) > > My smoke tests (replacing one of my wrapper classes with > direct > foreman implementation) didn't show any bugs, so +1 on > merge from me. > > > > >