Subject: Re: Plans for importing ATF
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
From: Zafer Aydogan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/05/2007 17:43:16
2007/11/5, Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>:
> On 05/11/2007, at 13:49, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> >> Please raise your concerns quickly. I probably won't be able to
> >> do all this for the following two weeks, but who knows, maybe I'll
> >> find time ;-)
> > No concerns, but: what do we do with it?
> First of all, I think it's an excellent tool for developers. Every
> time you touch a specific piece of code, say sh(1), you can easily go
> to the tests tree, run the tests and ensure that you have not broken
> anything. I have found this procedure an invaluable tool when
> working on projects that do have extensive test suites that can
> easily be executed at will.
> Then, it'll also be useful to end users. For example, after you have
> successfully installed a release on a production machine, you can
> easily see that it passes some basic tests to ensure it 1) remains
> stable and 2) behaves as expected. At the moment most people just
> "builds a release" as a stress test, but the idea is that you can
> have something more accurate and powerful. This is specially
> interesting on platforms that see less testing; we all know that
> there is much more (obvious) breakage in them than, say, i386.
> As a matter of fact, there are a couple of sh(1) regression tests
> that fail at the moment in current, and I bet they remain unfixed
> because no one actually executed the test suite to discover them
> (which is understandable because it's not trivial to do). Some other
> tests (the ones for df(1)) pass in i386 but fail in amd64. I expect
> people will have more pressure in fixing those problems if they can
> be notified of them early enough (or notified at all).
> > How does this tie into the NetBSD release process? Will it be ran
> > as part of the daily builds, or is there a dedicated machine that
> > runs this, and posts reports? While I understand that this is
> > technically better than src/regress, how do we solve the problem of
> > actually getting those tests ran on a regular base?
> There are no plans on this. To get started, I'd say "don't branch/
> release if any test fails". That'd be something for releng to do,
> but I'd really like to see some machine running the test suites
> periodically, and on as many platforms as possible. (That's
> basically the point of HTML reports, so that we'd collect them into a
> single machine and easily show them to interestd developers.)
> We can sort this out later, once people has experimented with the new
> framework, raised concerns about it, and when we have more tests in
> the suite.
> > Oh, and from the 'documentation' department: Is there some "intro"
> > text that shows a software author how to write tests for his software?
> I added some example to the web site, but I haven't got the time to
> write documentation. (There are manual pages for all the tools,
> though.) Even though, writing tests is very easy I think, so using
> others as an example should not be too problematic for now. Lame
> excuse for lack of formal documentation, I know, and I'll eventually
> get to writing some.
> > (And I'm not going to ask if we're going to make regression tests
> > mandatory for all code that we import in the future now :-)
> We should! :-) But again, this is a policy that can be enforced
> later on when people gets used to the framework and sees the value of
> Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Wow. Sounds excellent.