[Rpm-ecosystem] Testing suggestions for "dnf --quiet repolist" & dnf --quiet list"?

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 11:47:49 UTC 2015


On 15 July 2015 at 18:52, Honza Šilhan <jsilhan at redhat.com> wrote:
> We are missing the functional tests. The current unit tests are testing only parts
> of the code and especially transactions and command output is hardly testable currently.
> I also think it would be beneficial for us and QE to collaborate on these tests.
> But I don't know they would agree about using Behave framework instead of their
> beaker libs.

With the container testing folks likely standardising on behave as
their preferred functional testing framework, building some
integration between that and beakerlib so that each feature test can
be reported as a separate test result may potentially be a good thing.

> I wanted to talk to Karel Srot (QE responsible for yum who will
> probably at some time have to take care of DNF) so he can set up the beaker environment
> with some tests from yum. He is unfortunately PTO this week.

Good idea.

> The question is if dnf-QE
> alliance would work in the long term. If we could get write access into beaker to write
> the new tests on our own and QE would not be afraid of us erasing some of the tests. We
> want to run these tests in our CI checking the regression in the upstream and in pull request.

The restraint harness for Beaker supports running tasks directly from
git and outside the main Beaker environment, so it would potentially
be possible to collaborate with them that way.

> What am I saying now is to not make any radical changes or start to intensively work
> on the tests before we talk to QE.

Yeah, makes sense. I'll test this particular bug manually for now, and
hold off on any larger feature testing questions.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia


More information about the Rpm-ecosystem mailing list