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

[Nick Coghlan]

On 14 July 2015 at 19:38, Radek Holy <rholy at redhat.com> wrote:
> From: "Nick Coghlan" <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
>> Specifically, I'm thinking that behave scenarios could be a good way
>> of testing some end-to-end user facing CLI behaviour for "given this
>> command line, we expect this command output":
>> http://pythonhosted.org/behave/tutorial.html#scenario-outlines
>>
>> We wouldn't want to go overboard with these, but I think they'd be a
>> good way to check the basic interconnections between components are in
>> place.
>
> I started to write some Behave tests (I'd call them "system tests" rather than "integration tests" but it doesn't matter I think) already because I wanted to make sure that my documentation of the "--installroot" switch matches the reality. Take a look at it https://github.com/rholy/dnf-extra-tests . Maybe you find it worth extending. If you do, I'm ready to move them under https://github.com/rpm-software-management/ if the rest of the team agrees.

+1, that sounds like a good idea to me. I actually also like the idea
of keeping these kinds of system/acceptance tests separate from the
main dnf repo, as that helps ensure consistency across releases and
makes it easier for QE folks to contribute specifically to the
acceptance tests.

Given behave's naming scheme, perhaps we could use "dnf-feature-tests"
as the repo name under rpm-software-management?

In the meantime, I'll use your repo to make my test cases for the "dnf
--quiet repolist" bug.

Cheers,
Nick.

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