2017-09-15 21:29 GMT+05:00 Aleksandar Lazic <[email protected]>: > Hi. > > Willy Tarreau wrote on 15.09.2017: > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:36:20PM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > >> I'd say, it's chicken and egg situation. Whichever comes first, tests > or CI. > >> if we start a CI with "just build", it will evolve, people will start > >> writing tests (I beleive so) > > > I tend to believe it as well. However what I'm less convinced about is > > the long term maintenance of such an infrastructure. People tend to > > volunteer to set up stuff initially because it improves a situation but > > after 3 or 4 years they have other things to do and nobody maintains > > what they built anymore. We've seen this in the past with other stuff > > like a translated version of the web site for example. It's more > > important to spot who is willing to step up on this and to be sure to > > maintain it for a while and at least long enough to pass it to someone > > else once they start to get fed up. > > I have created a build ci on gitlab. > > https://gitlab.com/aleks001/haproxy17-centos/tree/master
there's more easy way of using docker images with gitlab-ci, for example: https://gitlab.com/chipitsine/openvpn/blob/master/.gitlab-ci.yml also, gitlab is very flexible, in the example above I use "shared" runners. and, if we want to maintain, we can attach own runners as well > > > The test would be very difficult due to the fact that you should have at > least a backend <-> haproxy <-> client and what Test should be run? > > When you take a look into the features of haproxy ;-) it's a huge task. > yep > > I suggest to use caddy as simple webserver or can we use the error_file > function to deliver some content from haproxy? > > > Cheers, > > Willy > > > -- > Best Regards > Aleks > >
