Petr Spacek wrote:
> 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
>>>>>> 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.

I'm referring to the downstream spec files (e.g. Fedora) which don't run
the lint target during the build.


Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA:

Reply via email to