----- Original Message -----
> From: "Petr Viktorin" <pvikt...@redhat.com>
> To: freeipa-devel@redhat.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 7:29:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [Freeipa-devel] Releasing testing tools as standalone projects
> On 11/03/2014 04:07 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > There's been some interest in releasing pieces of FreeIPA's testing
> > infrastructure so it can be reused in other projects.
> > I will soon take the pytest-beakerlib plugin (currently in my patch
> > 0672), and making a stand-alone project out of it. Later I'll extract
> > the common pieces of the integration testign framework, and release that
> > independently.
> Thanks for the discussion, everyone.
> I've opened a ticket to get the project space for the BeakerLib plugin:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4589
> When that's done I'll point the package metadata to there, push to PyPI
> and open a Fedora review request.

Awesome.  Thanks, Petr.

> While we wait, it's available here:
> https://github.com/encukou/pytest-beakerlib
> https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/pviktori/pytest-beakerlib

Mind if I pass this on to some other QE teams that might be interested?

> Do we need a version for EL 6? I'd need to check the pytest versions
> there, and build a newer pytest if necessary.

Yes, I think we will want an EL6 version as well at least at some point.

> The second part is the multi-host framework. I've looked at what parts
> are applicable to other projects than IPA, and came up with an initial
> design/README here: https://github.com/encukou/pytest-multihost
> I'll add a concrete example, code, and patches for IPA, soon.

This is the paramiko/openssh stuff you've mentioned before right?

I think this is the other piece I'd be very interested in.

> IPA also has/will have a plugin to run tests within a class in source
> order (respecting inheritance), rather than in pytest's unspecified
> order ("usually alphabetically", IIRC). It can be extracted as well if
> there's interest.

When you say in source order here, you mean source code order?  So, we could 
actually order tests in the file as we see fit instead of relying on naming to 
define execution order?

Would this affect use of the built in setup/teardown fixtures?  Or we should 
just stay away from those anyway?

Thanks, Petr.

> --
> PetrĀ³
> _______________________________________________
> Freeipa-devel mailing list
> Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to