On May 20, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Paul Lathrop wrote:
>
> I could be wrong, I speak to my understanding of things, not gospel
> from on-high :-)
I definitely appreciate your willingness to put your hand up. There's
no on-high here, I'm just stumbling slightly further in front of the
rest of you. :)
>
> Response inline:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> For me personally (and I think for anyone new to puppet, who would
>> like
>> to produce high-quality code) this is a huge barrier to puppet
>> development.
>
> Development should not be taking place on the master branch. Most
> contributions should be coded against the current stable branch
> (0.24.x as of this writing). Test results against 0.24.x commit
> 84a787a2a764a5035f7cbb8d30f94fc601bed154 look much better:
I would modify this slightly -- if you want your code to be released
as part of any 0.24.x release, it should take place against the 0.24.x
branch. If you're willing to wait until 0.25, or you require features
only available in the master branch, then it should take place against
that branch.
>
> Non-root: 2697 examples, 0 failures, 27 pending
> root: 2697 examples, 35 failures, 27 pending
>
> I'm not sure whether we should address the failures that occur when
> running as root - that's a call for someone more test-savvy than I.
I often used to run the test/unit tests as root, but the spec/ tests
are written so that they should not need to run as root, at least at
this point.
I assume that at some point we'll have integration tests that do
things like create users, install packages, etc., which would
obviously need to run as root, but we don't have them yet.
> Well, as I mentioned above, you can develop against the stable branch
> which doesn't have failures (except running as root). This should help
> you to see if you break something.
>
> Also, keep in mind we don't have 100% test coverage yet. I am working
> on migrating tests to RSpec from Test::Unit and I'm afraid the work is
> pretty slow going.
Now that Paul is a testing jedi in training, hopefully he can get
others to join the party.
>
>> So I have several questions:
>>
>> - do we at all agree that there should be NO failing tests at any
>> point
>> in time, and that any failing test is a bug? Even in master branch?
>> And as a result, no commit should introduce a test failure?
>
> Ideally, there would be no failing tests in the "official" repository.
> I definitely think Luke is working towards this goal. I know for a
> fact he will not accept new commits which lack tests or cause an
> existing test to fail (I've submitted commits like that). We should
> definitely work to fix the tests. Whether that takes priority over
> testing code that currently lacks tests is another question for Luke.
Broken test are essentially the highest priority, as Marcin is
completely right -- if tests are broken, you have no confidence at
all. Obviously there will sometimes be exceptions to this rule, but
as a rule, it's a good one.
> If you are eager to contribute, this is clearly an area that needs
> work. So, instead of thinking of it as fixing 200 failing tests, think
> of it as fixing 1. When you are done, fix another. Hopefully others
> will also help with this :-) Certainly I will if Luke says that this
> should be higher-priority than the work I'm doing to migrate tests to
> RSpec.
I really had no idea this many failures were happening. Please,
broken tests are a stain upon this earth -- fix them!
> Right now I believe we are still in the "benevolent dictator" stage
> (possibly dictators, I think James Turnbull can commit to the official
> repo, too). We just need a confirmation from the people with commit
> access to the official repo that commits which cause test failures (or
> lack tests) will not be integrated into the official repository going
> forward. Once we have that, we will be able to make progress fixing
> the broken tests because there won't be more broken tests cropping up.
I'm the only person with commit rights to the central repo hosted on
reductivelabs.com, but James is maintaining the official 0.24.x branch
(which at this point I periodically sync to the reductivelabs.com
repo). We're still working out the details, obviously.
--
A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in
human history--with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.
-- Mitch Ratcliffe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
