On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:44 -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: > 2008/12/13 Garrett Cooper <yaneg...@gmail.com>: > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Subrata Modak > > <subr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 14:05 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 14:26 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > >>> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Subrata Modak > >>> > <subr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>> > > Garrett, > >>> > > > >>> > > Is there any headway with upstart developers regarding this > >>> > > initiative. > >>> > > I dug out this mail from my mailbox to find this. Let me know if we > >>> > > can > >>> > > resume this discussion once again. > >>> > > > >>> > > Regards-- > >>> > > Subrata > >>> > > > >>> > > On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 19:06 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote: > >>> > >> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 05:26 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > >>> > >> > Hello LTP gurus (and upstart gurus), > >>> > >> > As I mentioned before on the upstart-devel list, one of the > >>> > >> > goals of the groups that I'm working with is to bring upstart -- > >>> > >> > the > >>> > >> > init replacement -- to Cisco's Linux based platform for process > >>> > >> > monitoring and management. As part of that we (my teammates and I) > >>> > >> > were thinking of including whitebox and blackbox tests with LTP > >>> > >> > (Linux > >>> > >> > test project) to try and unify testing of critical Linux > >>> > >> > components, > >>> > >> > and also provide deterministic output also with greater visibility > >>> > >> > in > >>> > >> > the testing community. > >>> > >> > LTP has a number of whitebox and blackbox tests in place [3], > >>> > >> > most of the whitebox tests being C API's and the blackbox tests > >>> > >> > being > >>> > >> > shell invocations of Unix commands, as well as a well-defined set > >>> > >> > of > >>> > >> > test reporting API's and functions already in place. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Ah!. That reminds me of the testcases for commands in LTP: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/commands/ > >>> > >> > >>> > >> I have been merging lots of patches and we were totally engaged with > >>> > >> our > >>> > >> white box test cases, that we completely forgot about those black box > >>> > >> test cases, which are of immense help for: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> 1) Increasing code coverage for the kernel, > >>> > >> 2) Testing the actual/mostly-used interfaces to the Linux OS. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Thanks Garrett for reminding this valuable testcases piece. And the > >>> > >> important point here to make is: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Writing white box test cases requires fair knowledge of Kernel > >>> > >> Internals, whereas the Blackbox test cases just requires user > >>> > >> knowledge > >>> > >> of the OS. With guidance from the Man Pages information, a huge > >>> > >> community of administrators and normal users can write these black > >>> > >> box > >>> > >> tests. And they are a huge group of people to count. I need to look > >>> > >> into > >>> > >> this seriously from now. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > So, my question is two-fold: > >>> > >> > 1. Would the upstart project be willing to work with LTP > >>> > >> > (via my > >>> > >> > team as a proxy in the beginning) to enter some unit test code and > >>> > >> > other test cases into LTP's test framework / overall testsuite, and > >>> > >> > improve acceptance in the Linux testing community? > >>> > >> > >>> > >> I would be providing you the support with testing on the > >>> > >> architectures i > >>> > >> have at my disposal and speedy patch merge to LTP. We definitely > >>> > >> need to > >>> > >> do something to increase the code coverage. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > 2. Would either group be willing to work with my team to help > >>> > >> > maintain these testcases and develop new ones? > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Of course, i will. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Thanks, > >>> > >> > -Garrett > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > PS. Sorry for the cross-posting ; I try not to do this, but > >>> > >> > considering that both groups can benefit from the discussion I > >>> > >> > wanted > >>> > >> > to involve both. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Nothing to worry about. When it comes to making Linux better, we need > >>> > >> collaboration on various fronts. The livest example being the work > >>> > >> done > >>> > >> by Masatake Yamato from Red Hat in porting Crackerjack´s > >>> > >> (https://sourceforge.net/projects/crackerjack) regression tests to > >>> > >> LTP > >>> > >> format. Thanks Garrett for taking this initiative. We need to > >>> > >> collaborate much more with others as well. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Regards-- > >>> > >> Subrata > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > 1. LTP -- Linux test project: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/ > >>> > >> > 2. Upstart -- init(1) replacement: http://upstart.ubuntu.com/ > >>> > >> > 3. LTP cvsweb -- http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/ (see docs > >>> > >> > for > >>> > >> > relevant documentation items, lib/ltp for test lib API's, and > >>> > >> > testcases/commands for existing Linux command blackbox tests). > >>> > > >>> > I haven't followed this up, but to be honest our group using upstart > >>> > has started using Python nose to write testcases for blackbox level > >>> > testing, and it's proven to be largely successful in finding basic > >>> > issues within the provided spec by the upstart folks. > >>> > > >>> > I don't know if the test code can be easily committed back because it > >>> > has Cisco IP -- I'll talk to Sarvi (tech lead) and Corey (the manager) > >>> > about that. > >> > >> Garret, > >> > >> Can we revive this ? > >> > >> Regards-- > >> Subrata > >> > >>> > >>> It would be great in such a case. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > As for whitebox testing, we should definitely follow up the intiative > >>> > for using tst_res. > >>> > > >>> > >>> Yes. And as you said, keep the momentum going for having the tst_* > >>> functions under varied programming language. Let it take itś own course > >>> and time, but, we should keep up the gear. > >>> > >>> Regards-- > >>> Subrata > >>> > >>> > -Garrett > > > > No time. > > -Garrett > > Ok, I have a bit more time now and it's become an issue Cisco side, so > it's important that this gets done ASAP. > > We (my group in Cisco) needs a library that's LGPL2.1/BSD licensed so > we don't violate the GPL, and I didn't get a response from SGI about > relicensing the components, so I'll need to recreate the C library > provided the API's provided on the LTP page. > > I'll see about getting this all ironed out in the next two weeks.
And this ? Regards-- Subrata > > Thanks, > -Garrett -- upstart-devel mailing list upstart-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
