Awesome, thanks for the clarification Paul. Regards, Chris
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Paul Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > adt-run, when used on the touch image, handles unlocking the device for > you. We will make sure the device is provisioned in advance. > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Chris Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for the clarification Paul. >> >> A follow on discussion about Utah and its replacement, can we confirm the >> environment for the dep8 tests that will be run? >> Namely we are interested in wherever the device will be provisioned and >> the screen unlocked so that any tests can run unhindered. >> >> QA team, am I missing anything else that we need to confirm? >> >> >> Chris >> >> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Paul Larson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Chris Lee <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I'm working on the memevent tests that can be found in >>>> lp:ubuntu-test-cases/touch[1]. >>>> One of the tasks is to make it dep8 compliant and I have a couple of >>>> questions regarding the best way forward. >>>> >>>> 1. Would you prefer if I move the memevent tests out into it's own >>>> branch to make the dep8 stuff easier to handle? Or do you prefer keeping it >>>> under the ubuntu-test-cases/touch branch? >>>> >>> We don't have an existing precedent for this, but here are my thoughts. >>> I like the idea of having tests that other teams maintain in a separate >>> branch, because it gives you full control over what goes into it. BUT, we >>> also don't want to have changes creeping into the CI runs without any idea >>> where they came from. So what I would propose, is that for now you develop >>> in a separate branch, and we pull the contents of that branch into >>> ubuntu-test-cases when we're ready to run the adt version. When you have an >>> update, you tell us to pull and we do a quick test to make sure it still >>> behaves and doesn't exhibit some strange new behavior, and then pull it >>> in. Otherwise, if you want to keep everything against our trunk, MPs >>> against that are fine as well. >>> >>> >>>> 2. Are the Utah setup files still needed or, due to it being dep8, is >>>> this no longer needed and the provisioning sorted out elsewhere? >>>> >>> No, assume utah will no longer be used at all. The one piece that may >>> linger for a short while is the yaml results format since the dashboard >>> consumes that. We already have a script that can take the junitxml that we >>> convert from subunit, and convert that to yaml though, so there's nothing >>> you need to do there. Once the dashboard speaks subunit, there won't even >>> be a need for that. >>> >>> Thanks for working on this! >>> - Paul Larson >>> >> >> >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
