Issue 4679 - Refactoring of build.py in adblockbrowser-build

Issue 4679 - Refactoring of build.py in adblockbrowser-build

[anton, 2016-12-01 06:50:15]

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29365856/diff/29365857/build.py
File build.py (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29365856/diff/29365857/build.py#newcode46
build.py:46: $name %s APK_PATH\
shouldn't it be `$name %s` here (APK_PATH is not required) ?

[diegocarloslima, 2016-12-01 10:36:18]

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29365856/diff/29365857/build.py
File build.py (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29365856/diff/29365857/build.py#newcode46
build.py:46: $name %s APK_PATH\
On 2016/12/01 06:50:15, anton wrote:
> shouldn't it be `$name %s` here (APK_PATH is not required) ?

Actually the APK_PATH was missing in the error message here. For signing
commands, the APK_PATH is required

[anton, 2016-12-01 10:53:33]

On 2016/12/01 10:36:18, diegocarloslima wrote:
> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29365856/diff/29365857/build.py
> File build.py (right):
> 
> https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29365856/diff/29365857/build.py#newcode46
> build.py:46: $name %s APK_PATH\
> On 2016/12/01 06:50:15, anton wrote:
> > shouldn't it be `$name %s` here (APK_PATH is not required) ?
> 
> Actually the APK_PATH was missing in the error message here. For signing
> commands, the APK_PATH is required

ok, than LGTM

[Felix Dahlke, 2016-12-12 08:03:20]

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29365856/diff/29365857/build.py
File build.py (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29365856/diff/29365857/build.py#newcode46
build.py:46: $name %s APK_PATH\
On 2016/12/01 10:36:18, diegocarloslima wrote:
> On 2016/12/01 06:50:15, anton wrote:
> > shouldn't it be `$name %s` here (APK_PATH is not required) ?
> 
> Actually the APK_PATH was missing in the error message here. For signing
> commands, the APK_PATH is required

No, APK_PATH is not required for build-and-sign: First a new APK is built, then
it is signed. Only the sign command needs to be provided with the APK path.

[diegocarloslima, 2016-12-12 09:42:44]

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29365856/diff/29365857/build.py
File build.py (right):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29365856/diff/29365857/build.py#newcode46
build.py:46: $name %s APK_PATH\
On 2016/12/12 08:03:19, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> On 2016/12/01 10:36:18, diegocarloslima wrote:
> > On 2016/12/01 06:50:15, anton wrote:
> > > shouldn't it be `$name %s` here (APK_PATH is not required) ?
> > 
> > Actually the APK_PATH was missing in the error message here. For signing
> > commands, the APK_PATH is required
> 
> No, APK_PATH is not required for build-and-sign: First a new APK is built,
then
> it is signed. Only the sign command needs to be provided with the APK path.

Yeah, my bad, it isn't required. Actually, it already knows where the apk is to
sign it since it's generated by the build step.

[Felix Dahlke, 2016-12-12 15:25:41]

LGTM, with that issue addressed.