On Wed, Aug 09 2017 at 09:26:19 +1000, William Brown <wibr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > -- Merging lib389 to 389-ds-base
>> >
> ...
>> > * Testing DS is guaranteed to work. Right now we have rapid change in
>> > lib389 and the tests in say 1.3.5 or 1.2.11.x are unlikely to work with
>> > latest lib389.
>> Another problem here is that tests are not backported to the older
>> branches. The only true source of tests is master branch that is
>> guaranteed to work with the latest lib389.
> But the issue here is we don't always mark them with versions
> properly...
I see that there is a room for improvement for our review process :)
>> > * We can tightly tie in features of DS with lib389 and their
>> > administration (ie no need to worry about backward compatibility).
>> > * Simpler release process - we only need to release 389-ds-base, and we
>> > are done. 
>> > * No more split patches for lib389 features and tests.
>> >
>> > Cons:
>> > * We will need to backport lib389 features to backport tests for fixes
>> > to older versions.
>> > * Inability for latest lib389 to manage older (or newer) versions of ds.
>> >
>> > -- Separate lib389
>> >
>> > We have lib389 as a project that moves at a different rate to the
>> > 389-ds-base project.
>> >
>> > Pros:
>> > * lib389 is able to use it's "knowledge" to administer *multiple*
>> > versions of Directory Server, rather that singly linked ones.
>> > * We can write tests into lib389 once and test them against all DS
>> > versions, or just relevant versions.
>> > * We can have the admin tools manage many versions of the software which
>> > may be cross platform/distro.
>> Why these 3 points can't be done in merged lib389 using version specific
>> logic in lib389 and the tests?
> This is also true. But once we merge, is there much need?
Yes, there is a need for downstream, especially in the late release
phase, when we can't add new fixes (with tests) in the builds (unless
really urgent issues), but we need to continue testing.
> We only need the connected test set. Issues we find in version 1.3.7
> are unlikely to be backported as fixes to 1.3.6 so the test cases
> aren't relevant here IMO.
Not always, regression bugs and security issues are fixed in multiple
branches, but usually only DS code is cherry picked, but not tests
(because we have different dir structure, changes in boilerplate code,
> My thinking is rather than have many cases/switches for all our
> lib389 to ds versions (which means we need to define a support policy),
> we can have a simpler 1:1 mapping. Makes the code easier for us, and
> given that most distributors will ship these together, makes that job
> easier too.
I see that we have different approaches to running tests. Let me explain
how we're doing it. We have downstream acceptance tests, that live in
git where each branch corresponds to Y-release of RHEL, e.g. RHEL69,
RHEL73, etc. Over time tests evolved to the point where backporting
something from RHEL7x branch to RHEL6x is a real pain. Master branch was
used for testing Fedora releases, but many times there was a situation,
when tests worked differently because of the change in DS that was on
Fedora N release, but not in N-1, so running tests from master was kinda
pointless. Also old framework doesn't support skipping tests out of the
box. So when upstream tests started to be using py.test, that was a
relief, because py.test has many great features like fixtures and marks.
For us logical way was to run upstream tests from master branch on all
versions of DS, but separating what can be run in the test/framework
logic itself, rather than using VCS branching. Think of it like of a
rolling release. With this approach we're not tied to RHEL schedules,
because we can always merge a test in master branch. And the same code
works across all DS versions unless version specific tests are used.

I agree, that merging lib389 to 389-ds-base should guarantee that tests
from the same revision work.

>> > * No more split patches for lib389 features and tests.
>> >
>> > Cons:
>> > * Need to invest time into version detection of the 389-ds-base package
>> > for configuration (both local and remote). IE we add a plugin in 1.3.7,
>> > but we need to know if lib389 is accessing 1.3.6 (and disallow the
>> > change).
>> I think of this as not a con, but a feature. Also adding more sanity
>> checks would be good. Our tools should be fool-proof.
>> > * Continue to manage separate release of software.
>> > * Need to manage lib389's older versions operating against *newer*
>> > 389-ds-base versions. This adds a lot of complexity and version checks
>> > (potentially with some server awareness?)
>> >
>> > -- Do nothing
>> >
>> > This is the current status.
>> I thought that separate lib389 is a current status, no?
> Yes, but this means we leave it seperate, and continue as is. The others
> propose moving the test suites *from* 389-ds-base/dirsrvtests to lib389,
> *OR* merging lib389 to 389-ds-base.
Moving 389-ds-base/dirsrvtests is a no-go IMHO, especially if we want to
gate changes when tests do not pass. Code and tests should live together.
>> >
>> > Pros:
>> > * We don't spend any time on the issue at all. 
>> >
>> > Cons:
>> > * We get the worst of both worlds. 
>> > * Continue to increase complexity as these diverge.
>> > * we often see the need to expand lib389 to express a test in
>> > 389-ds-base, so we will continue to need to split patches
>> >
>> >
>> > ============================
>> >
>> > My vote is to merge them. I came to this decision because I believe that
>> > this will make development against multiple branches easier with regard
>> > to testing and backport of patches. For example, we'll know that lib389
>> > that's inside of 1.3.7 will *always* work with that release, even if we
>> > have improved in 1.4.x etc.
>> My vote is to merge them as well. But for slightly different reasons:
>> packaging (blocking dependencies are not fun), single place of
>> development.
> Cool! That's 2 for merge so far :) 
>> >
>> > We also are developing new CLI and admin tools, and these are often
>> > tightly linked to a version of Directory Server. I think that it's
>> > easier for us as developers to have this specific linking, than trying
>> > to spend large amounts of time making something generic that works for
>> > all versions.
>> What about migration scenario, when you have a mix of old and new
>> versions of DS, and latest tools should be able to handle them?
> You would use the tools on the local host to manage it I would think.
> Just the same today with the pl tools.
I was thinking about new admin server capabilities, similar to what we
have currently with 389-admin and 389-console, where console from one
machine can control other versions of DS.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to