Would it be possible to have the required tests be Pulp core only, but to have an expanded set of non-mandatory smash tests which includes pulp_file?
Which would mean, the pulp_file smash test results would be there as a visual indicator, but wouldn't cause problems over the next few months before the plugin API is fully stabilized. On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > tl;dr: which set of pulp-smash tests should run against pulpcore PRs? > pulpcore + pulp_file or just pulpcore? > > Jeremy and I are working to enable a new check for PRs against Pulp's > 3.0-dev branch. This is going to be a jenkins job that installs pulpcore > from the PR and then runs pulp-smash smoke tests against it. > > The smoke tests include both pulpcore and pulp_file tests. When testing > PRs for pulp repository, should pulp_file also be installed thus allowing > pulp-smash all the tests? The other option is to not install pulp_file and > allow only the pulpcore tests to run. > > If both pulpcore and pulp_file tests are required to pass to merge a PR, > then we can get into a situation where the plugin API is intentionally > changing and the tests can't pass until the change is introduced to > pulp_file also. In such situations we could require the pulpcore-plugin > package to have it's version bumped, which would mark the build as passing. > > If only pulpcore tests are run we could get into a situation where the PR > breaks the plugin API and we don't learn this until after the code is > merged. > > Which set of tests should run for pulpcore PRs? > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
