make it a hook means "make it an executable file, probably in the hooks directory", that (maybe) calls make -C $CHARM_DIR test
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Marco Ceppi <[email protected]> wrote: > Could you elaborate on what you mean by "make it a hook"? I'm not sure how a > hook fits the requirements of a test. It's not an event that fires by Juju > and is run locally, outside of a deployment, all together. > > Thanks, > Marco Ceppi > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Juan Negron <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> +1 on making it a hook. It sounds like a good the juju way of doing it :) >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Cheney <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Lets make it a hook, that sounds like the only way it can be >>> implemented without showing a bias towards any one solution. >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Marco Ceppi <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > I've been toying with this idea for the past few days after seeing a >>> > Makefile in a charm. As we move closer to starting the audit on the >>> > charms >>> > in the charm store I'm trying to figure out best practices for the >>> > juju-test >>> > plugin to be able to run not only the integration tests but also unit >>> > tests >>> > that are starting to appear in more and more charms (LOVE THIS!) >>> > >>> > Originally, I figured unit tests would be included as a test file in >>> > the >>> > tests directory, eg: >>> > >>> > ```tests/01-unit-test >>> > #!/bin/bash >>> > set -eux >>> > >>> > sudo apt-get install python-nose >>> > >>> > CHARM_DIR=$(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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> >> Juan L. Negron <[email protected]> >> Mobile: +1 408 634 0292 >> Cloud Architect >> Canonical Technical Services >> Canonical USA >> GPG : 0A62 BC70 5CBC B4DD F3E6 8A27 A6B1 F3F0 E6B5 F5A3 > > -- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
