On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
<sochotni...@redhat.com> wrote:
"I" didn't name them. I used standard names for different testing
levels
as defined by software engineering bodies. Quoting from SWEBOK:
Yes, I think they're wrong. Well, "suboptimal" is a better word.
During making glib changes you should run glib unit tests to have some
basic level of assurance you didn't introduce regressions or unwanted
changes.
The *very first* test I run is "does the OS still boot"? That's called
"smoketest" for me, and it only takes a few minutes.
Yes, after every change, even just an updated translation, I boot the
OS, run through systemd, gdm, gnome-shelll, and everything and ensure
it still logs in.
This is *before* I run the GTK+ tests or the glib tests or any other
test. Why? Because if that fails, there's *no point* to running the
other tests. The system is broken. The originating change is
investigated and is up for reverting. Whether or not the GKeyFile
test pass or not is irrelevant.
(Also, there is the fact that InstalledTests are guaranteed to be run
in a logged in desktop, not a mock chroot, so the above needs to work
anyways)
It's great that your change helped with discovering issues but perhaps
your original testsuite was mixing different levels of testing in the
same code. Unit tests are supposed to be quick, dirty solutions using
mock objects and other "hacks" to allow of testing with small
granularity.
Ah, but if one makes "integration tests" very fast and easy to run as I
have, then there's less need for "quick and dirty".
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
