Actually it was not a hollywar but a small discussion which get no continuation
due to low priority and some technical problems.
The point is that ATM unit tests in python-fuelclient act like integration
tests because they require a live instance of the Nailgun API and certain data
in Nailgun’s
Sebastian, it was mostly on some internal meetings. I think Roman
Prykhodchenko was going to participate and shine some light on topic.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2015-02-09 13:57 GMT+01:00 Nikolay Markov :
>>
>> They say, there is some kind of "holywar"
Hi all,
I don't know nothing about 'holywar' so I'm interested where it had place.
According to the fuel-client tests I think that it will be good idea to run
some integration tests on nailgun API to check if client really works with
nailgun and if it works as expected, but unit test can have mock
Hi,
2015-02-09 13:57 GMT+01:00 Nikolay Markov :
> They say, there is some kind of "holywar" around the topic on if
> fuel-client tests should rely on working Nailgun API without mocking
> it.
>
Could you point us where was such "hollywar" was, so we could get some
background on the topic?
Best
Hello colleagues,
They say, there is some kind of "holywar" around the topic on if
fuel-client tests should rely on working Nailgun API without mocking
it. This is also connected with API stabilizing and finally moving
fuel-client to a separate library which may be used by any third-party
projects
