On 14 March 2011 17:44, Daniel Pittman <dan...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:32, Paul Nasrat <pnas...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 14 March 2011 16:52, Daniel Pittman <dan...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 19:57, James Turnbull <ja...@lovedthanlost.net> >>> wrote: > > […] >>> It would be really good to see some tests to verify that we keep >>> delivering this fact on the appropriate platforms added; we have a >>> real habit of making changes to Facter without testing, and that model >>> leads to regressions later... >> >> Having CI jobs for previous and past release calling ext/facter-diff >> to check for regressions should help. What is the status of >> hudson/jenkins and puppet/facter these days? > > That only helps on the platforms we have running at this point in > time, and delays detection compared to a test with appropriate > fixtures on developer machines. We do have a bunch of platform > coverage in Hudson, of course, but I don't believe any of the tests in > the codebase are using the facter-diff tools to try and verify > correctness at this point in time.
Sure unit tests are hugely important, plus give fast feedback and our coverage is not necessarily always great, but we should also have a regression test suite I think to smoke test an RC for fact regressions. Paul -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
