-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/#review112223
-----------------------------------------------------------


I'm generally ok with this this. The main benefit of smaller target groups is 
faster test runs, but tbh, I've probably spent more time looking up which 
smaller target has the tests I want to run than I've saved ;).


src/test/python/apache/aurora/client/api/BUILD (line 16)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/#comment172578>

    While we're at it, can we name the test targets to match the directory (so 
`api` in this case)? That way we can use pants target shorthand of `./pants 
test src/test/python/apache/aurora/client/api` rather than having to do, e.g., 
`api:all`


- Joshua Cohen


On Dec. 29, 2015, 9:39 p.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 29, 2015, 9:39 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Zameer Manji.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> I'm using this file as a proposed convention for test targets in `BUILD` 
> files.  In addition to being less redundant, i find the resulting file much 
> easier to understand.  In the past when refactoring, i can find it 
> nightmarish to go back and bring all the build targets back into line (often 
> repeating myself with imports changed in code).
> 
> If this proposal is accepted, i would like to further propose we collapse our 
> `BUILD` files into one target for all python tests.
> 
> Note that this patch is related to 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-959
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/test/python/apache/aurora/client/api/BUILD 
> 2a55cec51324c18debf10a1da93a74043f288a93 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill Farner
> 
>

Reply via email to