Hi everyone, esp Jean.
On 02/10/09 14:13, Jean McCormack wrote:
> So the directory will be test. The doc will be README? Is there any
> required format for the doc?
The only requirement is that the directories will be called "test", and
that they will hang off the directory of the stuff their contents are
testing. The purpose of this is to keep the testing stuff somewhat
organized and findable in the gate, grouped close to the stuff it is
testing. There are no other "rules". You can put anything relevant to
testing there, can call it whatever makes sense, and can organize it as
you see fit (subdirectories).
> To test the transfer module I have a bunch of python scripts very
> specific to my machine. Obviously
> they won't work very well for others but they do serve as a "how to".
> Do you want those checked in?
Yes. A how-to would be useful. If it only works in certain
environments, state that, but don't spend time on it.
> If so, do we need Makefiles?
If you have them, include them. But, again, don't put time into making
them pretty. Just quickly document what they are.
> Are we all going to do the checkins separately or send them to one person
> who does them in batch?
We all check in our own stuff. Why involve a middle-person?
> Do we need a bug opened on this?
Hmmm. I suppose filing under a certain bug ID would be helpful. At
least it would be consistent with other putbacks.
I have opened a bug. It has the short name of:
6603 slim_source unit tests
We can append the test directories to the name, in the hg commit. This
way one can grep through the hg log for history, and the "push" process
is more-or-less consistent with other pushes.
6603 should not be closed, but just appended to with the changeset
number and the stuff going back with that changeset. This, too, helps
keep an easily parsable trail of what is happening.
I'll look into existing test directories, and file a bug to get them
corrected into the proper structure.
Thanks,
Jack
>
> Jean
>
> Jack Schwartz wrote:
>> Hi Alok.
>>
>> On 02/10/09 12:15, Alok Aggarwal wrote:
>>> Hi Jack,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Jack Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>>> HI Alok.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that we should keep tests in similar format to ON. There
>>>> are lots of places in ON which keep tests together with the things
>>>> they are testing; the example of dtrace which you sight is one.
>>>> However, some places in ON don't do this, such as the example of
>>>> ztest which you sight.
>>>>
>>>> It is important from an organizational point of view to keep tests
>>>> together with the things they test; if nothing else, doing this
>>>> will provide a logical place to look for the desired tests. What I
>>>> proposed supports this.
>>>
>>> Okay, cool. The only thing I would say is to have the
>>> testing subdirs be named 'test'.
>> Sounds fine to me.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jack
>>>
>>> Alok
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>
