tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Revisiting the migration path to Kyua

On Feb 15, 2014, at 17:10 , Andreas Gustafsson <> wrote:

> Julio Merino wrote:
>> The way things are now (and the way things were last year), when you
>> set MKKYUA=yes, atf-run and atf-report get replaced by shell scripts
>> that invoke kyua underneath.  The CLI of these scripts is compatible
>> with the real ATF tools, but the semantics of their execution
>> differ.  This is why flipping the flag on your system showed some
>> differences.
>> With my new proposal, setting MKKYUA=yes would have no effect on
>> atf-run nor atf-report at all.
> It may have no effect on atf-run or atf-report, but it will have an
> effect on anita which greps for MKKUYA=yes in /etc/release and behaves
> differently depending on whether or not it's there, as you requested.

Oh, that's a good point that I forgot about!

If we go with this proposal, we need to change Anita to decouple the enabling 
of Kyua in the base system by default with the selection of the tool used in 
your test machines.

I think it'd make sense to add a command-line flag to "anita test" to let the 
caller specify whether atf or kyua is to be used -- and to ignore MKKYUA 
altogether.  Something along the lines of:

anita test --engine=atf ...
anita test --engine=kyua ...

the former being the default for now, and the latter being offered for 
experimentation purposes.  The default could change at a later point once you 
are happy with what Kyua offers (not yet, I know).

I think the changes should be easy.  Should I try to come up with a diff?


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index