On (29/08/16 14:47), Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >On (29/08/16 14:36), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >>On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Lukas Slebodnik <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On (29/08/16 14:15), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >>>>On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Lukas Slebodnik <[email protected]> >>>>wrote: >>>>> On (29/08/16 12:08), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >>>>>>On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Jakub Hrozek <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:38:46AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>>>>>>> On (29/08/16 07:09), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >>>>>>>> >Hoiwdy! >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio >>>>>>>> ><[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> This patch is a first attempt to make "make intgcheck" less >>>>>>>> >> painful/time consuming than it is now. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Although the patch provides a good improvement on having 5 new >>>>>>>> >> targets, I know it's still not ideal. The ideal case, IMO, would be >>>>>>>> >> being able to select which subset of tests would be run, but that's >>>>>>>> >> an >>>>>>>> >> improvement that can be done later on. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Tips are welcome. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Best Regards, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >After a few dicussions and some tests done when we met personally, I >>>>>>>> >found out that the patch was broken. >>>>>>>> >Taking Lukaš suggestion (almost) I've merged the -prepare and >>>>>>>> >-configure parts and re-worked the way we get the prefix. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >Now it seems to be working! >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >Best Regards, >>>>>>>> >-- >>>>>>>> >Fabiano Fidêncio >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >From a33e1dffd063845e709f5fc1cfec93c330445ab4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>>>>>> >From: =?UTF-8?q?Fabiano=20Fid=C3=AAncio?= <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> >Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:24:17 +0200 >>>>>>>> >Subject: [PATCH v2] BUILD: Add a few more targets for intg tests >>>>>>>> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >>>>>>>> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>>>>>>> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >Running "make intgcheck" has been proven to be a bit painful (mainly >>>>>>>> >when the developer is just writing down a single test case), as it >>>>>>>> >cleans up the build directory and fireis a new build before, finally, >>>>>>>> >run the tests. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >In order to make it a little less painful, let's break the whole >>>>>>>> >operation into 4 new targets: >>>>>>>> > intgcheck-{prepare,build,run,clean}. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >As expected, "make intgcheck" calls these 4 new operations in the same >>>>>>>> >order they were presented, not changing then the current behavior. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >Each operation will trigger the previous one in case there is no >>>>>>>> >"$$prefix" directory created and the directory is _only_ created in >>>>>>>> >the >>>>>>>> >very first operation (intghceck-prepare). >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> >--- >>>>>>>> > Makefile.am | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- >>>>>>>> > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am >>>>>>>> >index 30d874e..8372b92 100644 >>>>>>>> >--- a/Makefile.am >>>>>>>> >+++ b/Makefile.am >>>>>>>> >@@ -3076,30 +3076,50 @@ endif >>>>>>>> > # Integration tests # >>>>>>>> > ##################### >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >-intgcheck: >>>>>>>> >+intgcheck-prepare: >>>>>>>> > echo "temporarily disabled" >>>>>>>> > set -e; \ >>>>>>>> >- rm -Rf intg; \ >>>>>>>> >- $(MKDIR_P) intg/bld; \ >>>>>>>> >- : Use /hopefully/ short prefix to keep D-Bus socket path short; \ >>>>>>>> >- prefix=`mktemp --tmpdir --directory sssd-intg.XXXXXXXX`; \ >>>>>>>> >- $(LN_S) "$$prefix" intg/pfx; \ >>>>>>>> >- cd intg/bld; \ >>>>>>>> >+ rm -Rf intg ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ $(MKDIR_P) intg/bld ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ : Use /hopefully/ short prefix to keep D-Bus socket path short ; >>>>>>>> >\ >>>>>>>> >+ prefix=`mktemp --tmpdir --directory sssd-intg.XXXXXXXX` ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ $(LN_S) "$$prefix" intg/pfx ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ cd intg/bld ; \ >>>>>>>> > $(abs_top_srcdir)/configure \ >>>>>>>> >- --prefix="$$prefix" \ >>>>>>>> >+ --prefix=$$prefix \ >>>>>>>> > --with-ldb-lib-dir="$$prefix"/lib/ldb \ >>>>>>>> > --enable-intgcheck-reqs \ >>>>>>>> > --without-semanage \ >>>>>>>> >- $(INTGCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS); \ >>>>>>>> >- $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS); \ >>>>>>>> >- : Force single-thread install to workaround concurrency issues; \ >>>>>>>> >- $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -j1 install; \ >>>>>>>> >- : Remove .la files from LDB module directory to avoid loader >>>>>>>> >warnings; \ >>>>>>>> >- rm "$$prefix"/lib/ldb/*.la; \ >>>>>>>> >- $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src/tests/intg intgcheck-installed; \ >>>>>>>> >- cd ../..; \ >>>>>>>> >+ $(INTGCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS) ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ cd ../.. >>>>>>>> >+ >>>>>>>> >+intgcheck-build: >>>>>>>> >+ if [ ! -d intg/pfx ]; then $(MAKE) intgcheck-prepare; fi ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ prefix=`readlink -e intg/pfx` ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ cd intg/bld ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ : Force single-thread install to workaround concurrency issues ; >>>>>>>> >\ >>>>>>>> >+ $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -j1 install ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ : Remove .la files from LDB module directory to avoid loader >>>>>>>> >warnings ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ rm "$$prefix"/lib/ldb/*.la ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ cd ../.. >>>>>>>> >+ >>>>>>>> >+intgcheck-run: >>>>>>>> >+ if [ ! -d intg/pfx ]; then $(MAKE) intgcheck-build; fi ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ cd intg/bld ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -C src/tests/intg intgcheck-installed ; \ >>>>>>>> >+ cd ../.. >>>>>>>> >+ >>>>>>>> >+intgcheck-clean: >>>>>>>> >+ prefix=`readlink -e intg/pfx` ; \ >>>>>>>> > rm -Rf "$$prefix" intg >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >+intgcheck: >>>>>>>> >+ $(MAKE) intgcheck-prepare >>>>>>>> >+ $(MAKE) intgcheck-build >>>>>>>> I would merge intgcheck-prepare and intgcheck-build bas well. >>>>>> >>>>>>Can be done. But if that's not a mandatory requirement I still think >>>>>>it may be useful for someone else in the way it's split. >>>>>> >>>>> "prepare" and "build" it's the same for me. >>>>> It is a prerequisity for >>>>> <userstory> >>>>> As a developer, I need a way to run a single test without >>>>> re-compiling SSSD every time and waiting for all the tests to >>>>> finish. >>>>> </userstory> >>>> >>>>Okay. I've merged both and kept the "-build" name. >>>> >>> "-build" is a little bit confusing IMHO. >>> Because the target not only build sssd with custom prefix but also >>> *install* sssd. So prepare might be more appropriate. >>> >>> Sorry for nitpicking and fell free to propose different name. >> >>s/build/prepare done. >>Please, see the attached patch. >> >>Being completely honest here, I don't like the idea of not having a >>step that builds and installs. >>Let's see if someone complains in the future, then we can end up >>re-adding this extra step. >> >Agree, it might change in future when more people will try to write >tests. > >Personally, I will use just a intgcheck-prepare >then I will jump into intg/bld and then I will use >ordinary make targets (all, check, install, clean) > >Other intgcheck-* targets might be usefull for others >or they can be a considered as a backword compatibility >for CI script. > >>From 33e66d12b39ef1c4fa6e23b38a644bdbafa6b7e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>From: =?UTF-8?q?Fabiano=20Fid=C3=AAncio?= <[email protected]> >>Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:24:17 +0200 >>Subject: [PATCH v4] BUILD: Add a few more targets for intg tests >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> >>Running "make intgcheck" has been proven to be a bit painful (mainly >>when the developer is just writing down a single test case), as it >>cleans up the build directory and fireis a new build before, finally, >>run the tests. >> >>In order to make it a little less painful, let's break the whole >>operation into 3 new targets: >> intgcheck-{prepare,run,clean}. >> >>As expected, "make intgcheck" calls these 3 new operations in the same >>order they were presented, not changing then the current behavior. >> >>Each operation will trigger the previous one in case there is no >>"$$prefix" directory created and the directory is _only_ created in the >>very first operation (intghcheck-prepare). >> >>A note must be done about how to run a simple test file or a simple test >>from a test file when running "make intgcheck-run". The option always >>been here but only makes sense now that we have the intgcheck split in a >>few useful steps. See the examples below (and for more detailed >>information, check the py.test documentation): >> #Run a single file >> INTGCHECK_PYTEST_ARGS="-k test_netgroup.py" make intgcheck-run >> #Run a single test from a single file >> INTGCHECK_PYTEST_ARGS="test_netgroup.py -k test_add_empty_netgroup" make >> intgcheck-run >> >>Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <[email protected]> >>--- >> Makefile.am | 17 +++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >ACK. > >Just waiting for Ci results. We do not want to break them :-) > http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/52/62/summary.html
master: * 6159c33125f8ee82e88d495ea2aa5d00018ea844 And I would like to keep workflow the same for stable branch sssd-1-13: * 3bfe059a2af7e839ef9b54961403ddffa51f77f7 LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/[email protected]
