Hi, Joseph: Thanks for continuing to work to clean this up. I noticed similar test errors when working on the replacement file for web.json5. I dodged the question by simply getting my drop-in replacement working, but it's a fair one.
IMO we should only preserve the "web" tests if they are doing something not already done elsewhere. For example, if we check a pattern for all the different contexts, and we're just doing that again for web.json5, we can lose that variation. If we're using the web.json5 data to exercise code that isn't tested elsewhere, then the tests probably need to be converted. If you can figure the "uniqueness" of the tests just from reading the tests, awesome. Otherwise, the code coverage report might be a good benchmark, i.e. compare a copy of the "reports" directory generated by a test run against master (tons of these in CI) against the reports generated when running the tests against your branch. If there are gaps introduced when the tests are commented out, that's a sign they might need to be converted or at least have their unique bits folded into some other set of tests. Anyway, thanks again for looking at this. Cheers, Tony On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 17:25, Joseph Scheuhammer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Further investigations of the use of the solutions listed in the 'web' > solutions registry, has revealed two test folders that are very old and > likely could be removed. They are associated with the deviceReporter > and the directories in question are "review3" and "secondPilots". They > are found as sub-folders in "gpii-universal/testData/deviceReporter/". > > The "review3" also indirectly references the "vladimir" preferences set > via a group of mock solutions for vladimir for different contexts. > Recall that contexts are no longer supported. The names of the solution > files are "installedSolutionsVladimirHotel.json5" and > "installedSolutionsValdimirSubway.json5" and so on. > > There is some documentation for the second pilots referenced from a text > file in the "secondPilots" folder: > > * > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f4s6EUpLRR9ZMqQyJufmwx0l7HfzxdSNYusZa8vysSc/ > - This links to a document that brings up a dialog stating "File is in > owner's trash". > > * http://wiki.gpii.net/w/Cloud4all_Second_Pilot_Phase > - Lots of secondary links > > * http://wiki.gpii.net/w/Cloud4all_Pilot_2_-_Set_up_and_installation > > There is one piece of documentation in "review3" that links to a long > google doc: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/13fqxn2kpmLcdDkSnHKKpW3DtHaKVxP_zyA92-NqxWLU/edit > > Is any of this worth keeping? I've removed the 'web' solutions and also > the preferences sets that depend on them, and am re-working some tests. > But, it's not clear if above material directly depends on those > changes. There is probably some dependency, but if anyone has knowledge > or opinions about this demo device reporter material, let me know. > > Thanks. > > -- > ;;;;joseph. > > 'The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen all at > once.' > - B. Banzai - > > _______________________________________________ > Architecture mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gpii.net/mailman/listinfo/architecture >
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gpii.net/mailman/listinfo/architecture
