On 4.12.2015 14:42, Rob Crittenden wrote: > Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> > 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. > Because it would be overkill during development. The expectation is that > developers and reviewers run the tests before submission/acceptance. If > they fail to do that then it will be obvious. > >>> >> 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) > By the time downstream gets a tarball it is too late to fix lint errors. > If upstream is doing a release with lint errors then there is something > deeply wrong with the release process. If someone wants to add it to the > downstream spec files I'm not going to complain, I just find it > extremely unlikely that it will provide any value, ever.
Sorry Rob, but I disagree. Lint already caught couple cases where Requires: were not properly updated so IPA code was referencing non-existing code in Dogtag/Custodia packages and so on. So clearly there is some value in it. -- Petr^2 Spacek -- Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code
