[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 PR testing with pulp-smash



Would it be possible to have the required tests be Pulp core only, but to have an expanded set of non-mandatory smash tests which includes pulp_file?

Which would mean, the pulp_file smash test results would be there as a visual indicator, but wouldn't cause problems over the next few months before the plugin API is fully stabilized.


On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban redhat com> wrote:
tl;dr: which set of pulp-smash tests should run against pulpcore PRs? pulpcore + pulp_file or just pulpcore?

Jeremy and I are working to enable a new check for PRs against Pulp's 3.0-dev branch. This is going to be a jenkins job that installs pulpcore from the PR and then runs pulp-smash smoke tests against it. 

The smoke tests include both pulpcore and pulp_file tests. When testing PRs for pulp repository, should pulp_file also be installed thus allowing pulp-smash all the tests? The other option is to not install pulp_file and allow only the pulpcore tests to run.

If both pulpcore and pulp_file tests are required to pass to merge a PR, then we can get into a situation where the plugin API is intentionally changing and the tests can't pass until the change is introduced to pulp_file also. In such situations we could require the pulpcore-plugin package to have it's version bumped, which would mark the build as passing.

If only pulpcore tests are run we could get into a situation where the PR breaks the plugin API and we don't learn this until after the code is merged.

Which set of tests should run for pulpcore PRs?

_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]