On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 14:26 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Subrata Modak > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Garrett, > > > > Is there any headway with upstart developers regarding this initiative. > > I dug out this mail from my mailbox to find this. Let me know if we can > > resume this discussion once again. > > > > Regards-- > > Subrata > > > > On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 19:06 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote: > >> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 05:26 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > >> > Hello LTP gurus (and upstart gurus), > >> > As I mentioned before on the upstart-devel list, one of the > >> > goals of the groups that I'm working with is to bring upstart -- the > >> > init replacement -- to Cisco's Linux based platform for process > >> > monitoring and management. As part of that we (my teammates and I) > >> > were thinking of including whitebox and blackbox tests with LTP (Linux > >> > test project) to try and unify testing of critical Linux components, > >> > and also provide deterministic output also with greater visibility in > >> > the testing community. > >> > LTP has a number of whitebox and blackbox tests in place [3], > >> > most of the whitebox tests being C API's and the blackbox tests being > >> > shell invocations of Unix commands, as well as a well-defined set of > >> > test reporting API's and functions already in place. > >> > >> Ah!. That reminds me of the testcases for commands in LTP: > >> > >> http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/commands/ > >> > >> I have been merging lots of patches and we were totally engaged with our > >> white box test cases, that we completely forgot about those black box > >> test cases, which are of immense help for: > >> > >> 1) Increasing code coverage for the kernel, > >> 2) Testing the actual/mostly-used interfaces to the Linux OS. > >> > >> Thanks Garrett for reminding this valuable testcases piece. And the > >> important point here to make is: > >> > >> Writing white box test cases requires fair knowledge of Kernel > >> Internals, whereas the Blackbox test cases just requires user knowledge > >> of the OS. With guidance from the Man Pages information, a huge > >> community of administrators and normal users can write these black box > >> tests. And they are a huge group of people to count. I need to look into > >> this seriously from now. > >> > >> > So, my question is two-fold: > >> > 1. Would the upstart project be willing to work with LTP (via my > >> > team as a proxy in the beginning) to enter some unit test code and > >> > other test cases into LTP's test framework / overall testsuite, and > >> > improve acceptance in the Linux testing community? > >> > >> I would be providing you the support with testing on the architectures i > >> have at my disposal and speedy patch merge to LTP. We definitely need to > >> do something to increase the code coverage. > >> > >> > 2. Would either group be willing to work with my team to help > >> > maintain these testcases and develop new ones? > >> > >> Of course, i will. > >> > >> > Thanks, > >> > -Garrett > >> > > >> > PS. Sorry for the cross-posting ; I try not to do this, but > >> > considering that both groups can benefit from the discussion I wanted > >> > to involve both. > >> > >> Nothing to worry about. When it comes to making Linux better, we need > >> collaboration on various fronts. The livest example being the work done > >> by Masatake Yamato from Red Hat in porting Crackerjack´s > >> (https://sourceforge.net/projects/crackerjack) regression tests to LTP > >> format. Thanks Garrett for taking this initiative. We need to > >> collaborate much more with others as well. > >> > >> Regards-- > >> Subrata > >> > >> > > >> > 1. LTP -- Linux test project: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/ > >> > 2. Upstart -- init(1) replacement: http://upstart.ubuntu.com/ > >> > 3. LTP cvsweb -- http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/ (see docs for > >> > relevant documentation items, lib/ltp for test lib API's, and > >> > testcases/commands for existing Linux command blackbox tests). > > I haven't followed this up, but to be honest our group using upstart > has started using Python nose to write testcases for blackbox level > testing, and it's proven to be largely successful in finding basic > issues within the provided spec by the upstart folks. > > I don't know if the test code can be easily committed back because it > has Cisco IP -- I'll talk to Sarvi (tech lead) and Corey (the manager) > about that.
It would be great in such a case. > > As for whitebox testing, we should definitely follow up the intiative > for using tst_res. > Yes. And as you said, keep the momentum going for having the tst_* functions under varied programming language. Let it take itś own course and time, but, we should keep up the gear. Regards-- Subrata > -Garrett -- upstart-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
