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