Replying to myself again ... last one.
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 13:34 -0500, Guy Hulbert wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 10:02 -0800, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
<snip>
> > > need to ask Ask, I guess.
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure what the question is, but ...
>
> Well, you seem to have answered it ok :-).
>
> >
> > Ideally everything would be tested by automated tests. Matt or John
Now I understand what is going on, I can see that Matt and John have
addressed this but unit tests are limited to what can be put under the
'config.sample' directory.
At the moment there are very few existing plugin tests so I will work at
adding some more. I will also start on the "configuration script" idea
below (scare quotes because I don't really know what to call it yet).
>
> The question is how large the universe is then.
>
> >From what I see of qpsmptd there are several levels at which to test:
>
> 1. tests of the qpsmtpd framework
> 2. tests of individual plugins
> 3. tests of specific configurations
I think we can provide (3) in a simple way.
Add a tree parallel to ./plugins/ called:
./plugin_tests/
Add a "configuration script" which does two things:
1. Populates ./config.test/ and writes ./config.test/plugins using
a user-defined directory (e.g. ./config.sample/) as defaults.
2. Rebuilds t/plugin_tests appropriately from ./plugin_tests
This would require changing the default config dir for the tests to
'config.test'. It would allow us to use ./examples/config.*/
as acceptance tests and ./contrib/config.*/ as untested sample
configurations.
>
> I would look at 1 and 2 as unit tests but 3 as acceptance tests.
>
<snip>
> > Happy new year everyone! :-)
> >
> >
> > - ask
--
--gh
