On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 18:36 +, Mat Booth wrote:
> On 25 February 2014 11:19, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>
> > On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> > > 3) Another proposal (sorry don't remember who proposed it) was to have
> > > %check with a comment why the test suite is not execut
On Wed 05 Mar 2014 03:57:17 PM CET Alexander Todorov wrote:
> На 5.03.2014 14:12, Stanislav Ochotnicky написа:
>>
>> Why are you filing bugs (with patches) you don't understand then?
>
> This is a foolish statement to make without knowing what I do and don't know
> or
> understand.
That's the wh
На 5.03.2014 14:12, Stanislav Ochotnicky написа:
Why are you filing bugs (with patches) you don't understand then?
This is a foolish statement to make without knowing what I do and don't know or
understand.
Patch which contains text which you haven't verified is
correct. Quoting:
+%chec
On 5 March 2014 10:23, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> На 4.03.2014 20:36, Mat Booth написа:
>
> On 25 February 2014 11:19, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>>
>> On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>>>
3) Another proposal (sorry don't remember who proposed it) was to have
%check wit
On Wed 05 Mar 2014 11:23:23 AM CET Alexander Todorov wrote:
> На 4.03.2014 20:36, Mat Booth написа:
>> On 25 February 2014 11:19, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
3) Another proposal (sorry don't remember who proposed it) was to have
%chec
На 4.03.2014 20:36, Mat Booth написа:
On 25 February 2014 11:19, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
3) Another proposal (sorry don't remember who proposed it) was to have
%check with a comment why the test suite is not executed (e.g. requires
network) or
On 25 February 2014 11:19, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> > 3) Another proposal (sorry don't remember who proposed it) was to have
> > %check with a comment why the test suite is not executed (e.g. requires
> > network) or why it is executed in %build
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 08:04:10AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> The kernels that are built are tested at a minimum on 3 machines
>> before I even put them to git.
>
> I didn't realize this happened, so my apologies for making claims
> abo
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 08:04:10AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> The kernels that are built are tested at a minimum on 3 machines
> before I even put them to git.
I didn't realize this happened, so my apologies for making claims
about testing which aren't true. Is it possible you can boot them in
qe
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:12:59AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 08:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:50:56PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:53 +00
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> На 26.02.2014 15:56, David Howells написа:
>
>> Alexander Todorov wrote:
>>
>>> How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests
>>> or
>>> add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or wh
На 26.02.2014 15:56, David Howells написа:
Alexander Todorov wrote:
How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests or
add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or why
there are no tests for this package.
Does %check install the package and r
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:12:59AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 08:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:50:56PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:53 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > > It happens too often in
>
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 08:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:50:56PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:53 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > It happens too often in
> > > Rawhide, and a simple test (in %check or elsewhere) could fix it.
>
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:50:56PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:53 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > It happens too often in
> > Rawhide, and a simple test (in %check or elsewhere) could fix it.
>
> You can't really test a system boot in a package's %check. That's
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Are you saying that the boot path should have tests, and the
less-frequently used parts of the system should be verified by seeing
whether any human users notice breakage?
No. First, it's more that in order to run any other tests,
On Feb 26, 2014 5:16 AM, "Colin Walters" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky <
sochotni...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> "I" didn't name them. I used standard names for different testing levels
as defined by software engineering bodies. Quoting from SWEBOK:
>
>
> Yes, I thi
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:56 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> For the sorts of tests you are talking about it's much better to test
> the final RPM installed in a full OS environment. That is what (I
> hope) Taskotron is trying to do.
Well, that's *one* of the things it does, yes (as AutoQA did
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:53 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:58:43PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > 2014-02-26 14:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Walters :
> >
> > > During making glib changes you should run glib unit tests to have some
> > > basic level of assurance you didn't i
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:12:50PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> 2014-02-26 22:53 GMT+01:00 Richard W.M. Jones :
> > But bugs which break the boot prevent you from testing everything else.
> >
>
> Only if I would reboot boot my primary workstation into the new untested
> software, which I don't d
2014-02-26 22:53 GMT+01:00 Richard W.M. Jones :
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:58:43PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > 2014-02-26 14:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Walters :
> >
> > > During making glib changes you should run glib unit tests to have some
> > > basic level of assurance you didn't introduce regr
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:56:22PM +, David Howells wrote:
> Alexander Todorov wrote:
>
> > How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests or
> > add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or why
> > there are no tests for this package.
>
> D
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:58:43PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> 2014-02-26 14:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Walters :
>
> > During making glib changes you should run glib unit tests to have some
> > basic level of assurance you didn't introduce regressions or unwanted
> > changes.
> >
> > The *very first*
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 17:50 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Are you saying that the boot path should have tests,
Yes, that is what was being said.
> and the less-frequently used parts of the system should be verified
> by seeing whether any human users notice breakage?
No, that was neither sai
2014-02-26 17:46 GMT+01:00 Matthias Clasen :
> On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 16:58 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:> That seems to be
> optimizing for bugs that break the boot, when bugs
> > that occur in less-frequently used parts of the system are far more
> > common; a lot of software is not used, or not c
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 16:58 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> 2014-02-26 14:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Walters :
> The *very first* test I run is "does the OS still boot"?
> That's called "smoketest" for me, and it only takes a few
> minutes.
>
>
> That seems to be optimizing for bu
2014-02-26 14:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Walters :
> During making glib changes you should run glib unit tests to have some
> basic level of assurance you didn't introduce regressions or unwanted
> changes.
>
> The *very first* test I run is "does the OS still boot"? That's called
> "smoketest" for me, a
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Just save the built tree as another build-time
artifact.
We do this already with glib2:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/glib2.git/commit/?id=25351c50
And that's the general idea - assemble a tree containing -test
subpackages, and run
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:00 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> I don't think this would be a good idea to avoid such tests in %check.
> If you do that you have to later fetch the source code again, build it
> again and finally you can run the tests.
No you don't. There's no reason the final rpms
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 13:11 +, Colin Walters wrote:
> Ah, but if one makes "integration tests" very fast and easy to run as
> I have, then there's less need for "quick and dirty".
Which is sort of the crux of my argument against %check. "Hey, we found
this hammer, it smells kind of funny and
Alexander Todorov wrote:
> How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests or
> add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or why
> there are no tests for this package.
Does %check install the package and run the tests as root? For the keyutils
p
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
wrote:
"I" didn't name them. I used standard names for different testing
levels
as defined by software engineering bodies. Quoting from SWEBOK:
Yes, I think they're wrong. Well, "suboptimal" is a better word.
During making glib chan
On Wed 26 Feb 2014 01:41:36 PM CET Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
> wrote:
>>
>> Because unit tests are designed to be run as part of the build
>> process. It's not impossible to run them *after* the build, but good
>> luck making it work reliably acr
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
wrote:
Because unit tests are designed to be run as part of the build
process. It's not impossible to run them *after* the build, but good
luck making it work reliably across all packages without manual work.
The https://wiki.gnome.org/Ini
Adam Williamson writes:
> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:35 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> Just to mention: there are probably many packages where the equivalent
>> of %check can't be run without access to a source tree, so Taskotron
>> can't usefully replace %check. I maintain a package like th
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:35 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> Just to mention: there are probably many packages where the equivalent
>> of %check can't be run without access to a source tree, so Taskotron
>> can't usefully replace %check
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:35 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> Just to mention: there are probably many packages where the equivalent
> of %check can't be run without access to a source tree, so Taskotron
> can't usefully replace %check. I maintain a package like that.
How do you get from that pr
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:45:51PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>> >
>> > > 1) Do we consider this a bug an
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 22:38 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:45:51PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1) Do we consider this a
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:45:51PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> >
> > > 1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it?
> > > From last
> > > we
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:45:11PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are
> missing a %check section in their spec files but are very likely to
> have a test suite. See
> https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/maste
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>
>> 1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it? From
>> last
>> week discussions it looks like most people prefer to have tests executed in
>> %check.
>
>
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:32:37 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> > Well, your check may be too simplified. I've had a look at
> >
> >/mnt/fedora/l/libetpan-1.1-7.fc20.src.rpm
> >
> > and it contains a "tests" subdir with a few test programs, but no test-suite
> > to run automatically.
> >
>
> I
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:01:06AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> You are failing to distinguish between "pushed to package git" and
> "pushed to an installable repository", which is a mistake.
I'm distinguishing:
1. package compiles successfully
2. rpmbuild manages to include all files into an rpm
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 15:45 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > This is an argument against %check, not against testing in general. We
> > should be relying on rpmbuild less, not more. rpm doesn't even have
> > anything like Requires(ch
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>
> > 1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it? From
> > last
> > week discussions it looks like most people prefer to have tests executed in
>
На 25.02.2014 13:57, Michael Schwendt написа:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:47:01 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
Could you add a short classifier to each src.rpm name, which
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> 1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it? From
> last
> week discussions it looks like most people prefer to have tests executed in
> %check.
I don't consider %check to be an appropriate way to run tests,
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:47:01 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> >> https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
> >>
> >
> > Could you add a short classifier to each src.rpm name, which sums up why
> > your checker beli
На 25.02.2014 13:40, Michael Schwendt написа:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:45:11 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys,
I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing a
%check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite. See
https://github.com/
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:45:11 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing
> a
> %check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite.
> See
> https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/maste
On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are
> missing a %check section in their spec files but are very likely to have
> a test suite. See
> https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedo
Hi guys,
I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing a
%check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite. See
https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
F
53 matches
Mail list logo
