On (03/12/15 09:59), Rob Crittenden wrote:
>Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (02/12/15 13:14), Rob Crittenden wrote:
>>> Is it still mandatory that tests pass the unit tests before acceptance?
>> Unit test could be executed as part of "%check" phase in spec files.
>> I recently added C-base unit tests there.
>> I was not bale to run "make tests" there because many tests failed.
>> If they require real IPA server for execution ( or lite server)
>> then they are not unit test but integration tests.
>> One solution would be to skip them or to usw cwrap[1] + lite server.
>> So it can be run also in mock/koji which has many restrictions.
>It would represent quite a lot of work but it may be a good idea to
>investigate. Ipsilon uses cwrap for its tests so some of the
>configuration can be gleaned from that.
>I would definitely be opposed to this as part of the freeipa.spec in the
What do you mean by this part?

Did you mean "running make tests" in spec file?
If yes, could you elaborate why it's not good idea?
many projects run tests in "%check"
sssd, certmonger, glibc ...

Currently only C-based test are executed. And I added it only recently.

>git tree. In Fedora it might help find problems when rawhide becomes
>Fedora.next so it would provide some value there.
>> Also lint should be also part of "%check" phase and not part of
>> ordinary build.
>> BTW I could not see a lint[2] in fedora build at all. So I'm not sure
>> if it is executed with upstream spec file.
>It isn't there because the expectation is that lint already passes as
>part of the release process. I don't see the value on running lint on
>release tarballs.
That's just an expectation. It needn't be true. Your initial mail was about
stricter review process. And automating things is best way how to
enforce it. So reviewer would just build rpms and if "%check" phase
will not pass then he will not continue with review.
If it will be part of "%check" then you can use mock and easily ensure
that test passes on stable fedora and fedora rawhide (and maybe centOS)

>I also want to keep the focus on the reviewer's responsibility to ensure
>that patches do what they are supposed to and don't break things.
yes, but it does not mean that we cannot simplify/automate reviewer's tasks.
IMHO, as much as possible should be done in spec file; "%check".


Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to