Lets make it a hook, that sounds like the only way it can be implemented without showing a bias towards any one solution.
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Marco Ceppi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been toying with this idea for the past few days after seeing a > Makefile in a charm. As we move closer to starting the audit on the charms > in the charm store I'm trying to figure out best practices for the juju-test > plugin to be able to run not only the integration tests but also unit tests > that are starting to appear in more and more charms (LOVE THIS!) > > Originally, I figured unit tests would be included as a test file in the > tests directory, eg: > > ```tests/01-unit-test > #!/bin/bash > set -eux > > sudo apt-get install python-nose > > CHARM_DIR=$(pwd) PYTHONPATH=$(pwd)/hooks nosetests -s $(pwd)/hooks/tests > ``` > > That way you could run the entire test suite, via `juju test`, or just the > unit test with `juju test 01-unit-test`. However, I've noticed a lot more > charms with Makefiles. I'd like to know if maybe utilizing existing > conventions would be better. In this case `make test` would preform Unit > Tests, if any, and `make functional` could run the juju-test functional > tests. > > Thoughts on this? What should we recommend as a best practice - or even a > policy? At the end of the day we'll need to know in order to make sure the > charm testing infrastructure knows what to utilize. > > Thanks, > Marco Ceppi > > -- > Juju mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju > -- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
