On 8/8/13, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My conclusions after recent work attempting to run Trac functional >> test suite against fresh Bloodhound testing environments >> >> 1. there's a notable performance penalty >> when executing `wiki bh-upgrade` trac-admin command >> 2. The whole testing infrastructure relies upon >> HTTP Basic auth rather than Digest >> >> so ... Q's >> >> 1. Is it possible to patch it so as to disable wiki >> upgrades ? Will such a change be accepted ? >> > > I see that you've implemented this change as part of #375, and I'll take a > look. >
Disabling wiki upgrades is needed to speed up the functional test suite . Otherwise it's a nightmare to execute it . AFAICT it's a very expensive step . BTW , this step is only disabled under the hood by test code ; there are no options to do so while running the installer . Notice that #375 was reported against 0.4.0 . Recent changes in theme UI have completely removed comment and description previews :'( >> 2. Is it possible to add an option to setup Basic auth >> rather than Digest ? >> > > Is this to support functional test cases that rely on basic auth? I don't > see a reason why we shouldn't have the option available. > Yes . Notably RPC test cases rely upon basic auth config . Nevertheless they will work using HTTP Digest . This is mainly to prepare for what's coming next in terms of functional testing . > >> 3. the fact that Bloodhound theme improves look and feel >> in non-trivial ways has an impact on functional test cases >> and helper methods . For instance , all these factors >> present in recent versions have some impact on >> functional test code >> * there's no New Ticket link >> * element IDs do not match Trac's >> * there's a sort of functionalities powered by client-side >> js code >> * ... more TBD ... >> > > Keep in mind that we can push changes back to the Trac test suite provided > they don't harm or overcomplicate the Trac test suite. What I mean is, if > there is a way to slightly change a Trac test so that it works equivalently > or better for Trac and also supports Bloodhound, then I don't think we'll > have any trouble pushing it to the Trac core. Yes, there are a lot of potential improvements in functional testers code that I'd like to be encapsulated into methods that could be overridden by Bloodhound functional testers implemented for #387 . With time we might work towards this milestone . Consideer this WiP . There is an initial effort in aforementioned patches including : - new methods in functional tester - new regex to match content > I'm sure this won't be true > for all of the cases you are seeing though. > No , as can be seen in the documentation for BloodhoundFunctionalTester class in patches submitted for #387 . I've been very cautious and exhaustively documented all the differences in there . I also added # [BLOODHOUND] comments all over across code in tests/functional -- Regards, Olemis - @olemislc
