Andy Doan <[email protected]> writes: > On 10/17/2012 02:55 PM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: >> Andy Doan <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On 10/16/2012 07:47 PM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: >>>> We're going to be talking about test case management in LAVA at the >>>> Connect. I've brain-dumped some of my thoughts here: >>>> >>>> https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/LAVA/Specs/TestCaseManagement >>>> >>>> Comments welcome. But if all you do is read it before coming to the >>>> session, that's enough for me :-) >>> >>> It feels good just to see this all listed concisely. >>> >>> I think we probably need one other section in the page like "testdef >>> organization". This would describe any rules we have file filenames or >>> directory hierarchies needed by the git/bzr testdef repo so that we'll >>> know how to import things. >> >> Yeah. I guess there is also an issue around namespacing if we allow >> pulling from multiple branches -- if you pull from two places and both >> define the test called "stream", what happens? > > good point.
Also, suppose you use the web UI to update a test and then an update from a branch pulls in an update to the same test? (This is starting to feel a bit like the issues a dvcs-backed wiki like ikiwiki faces...) >> Another thought -- do we want to have private tests? > > I think we have to assume yes considering these test defs will/should > contain descriptions of tests. However, a private repo doesn't feel like > much of a difference other than the URL given to us to pull from. I'd > think you'd just want to use a white-listing approach like we currently > do for private builds. I was thinking more like a test where only privileged people can submit a job that runs the test and where the results of the test can only be submitted to a stream that has the same visibility as the test, or things like that. Cheers, mwh _______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
