On Thu, 10 May 2012 10:21:31 -0430, Luis Araujo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I am sending this email to bring up a topic that has been discussed > before[0] , and that I believe it is still relevant and worth > considering; about moving away the test definitions from the lava-test > package into its own project/package. > > We also had a discussion at #linaro-lava yesterday, some points were > raised in favour or regarding separating the test definitions, among them: > > - A separated test definitions package would allow to upgrade, modify > existing tests and/or release new ones without the need of releasing a > whole new lava-test package; and the other way around (it would make > maintenance easier and more flexible, something that current test > definitions seem to be lacking). > - It would promote more specialized tests definitions; since we have an > independent test definitions package, it should be easier to tailor and > branch for specific platforms or projects (and even encourage that). > - It is cleaner, from a development point of view, to keep test > definitions separated from the lava-test tool. Test definitions are not > components, but test files, similar in functionality to json job files. > This also would improve maintenance and collaboration efforts. > - A possible test definitions package should use a kind of versioning to > keep compliance with lava-test API, and hence avoiding any breakage, but > at the same time making the packages independent enough so we can > upgrade/modify one without affecting the other. > - We still could keep some minimal test definitions in the lava-test > package, though these would be more like 'simple' test cases, serving > more like examples for the given lava-test API/Core version. > > Apart of the above discussed issues, there are also some valid points at > [1]. Of special interest are the maintenance problem and to keep proper > cross-platform support in the tests. > > My initial idea was to have a possible 'lava-test-definitions' package > that could initially contain all the current available tests from the > latest lava-test package, update/fix the existing broken tests (if any), > then get a launchpad project following the TODO items from the blueprint > at [1] , and that should be enough to get us on the way. > > This email is intended to start a discussion that hopefully could bring > some technical decision about the subject, hence it is an open door for > ideas and comments, so please, share yours :)
It sounds OK to me, I guess I'd like to know what Paul Larson thinks, seeing as we'd basically be wanting to shove the work of maintaining lava-test-definitions over to his team :-) Cheers, mwh _______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
