On 01/30/2012 03:25 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:16 AM, pcrews<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi. It is pretty darned huge as it has the randgen + sql-bench in there as
well as tests, etc and I was wondering about this myself.
Here are two suggestions:
1) I can remove the Percona stuff. Apologies for not having done it
sooner, but I was thinking some tests would prove useful over time, like the
cluster_* and xtrabackup_* suites. However, a fair bit of this won't be
needed.
We already include xtrabackup, so those should be usable immediately.
I'm also a little bit positive for the idea of having around one test
suite that is capable of testing all kinds of stuff. Like you say,
randgen can be used in a way that it tests 3 different databases side
by side. However, an issue here is the maintenance and churn: If you
add cluster_* tests to drizzle tree now, how do you intend to keep
this updated? Will it be broken before anyone tries to add Galera to
Drizzle, or will you actually keep it working? If you have some low
effort way to make sure the Percona tests, Drizzle tests, etc will
stay in sync, then it sounds ok. If they are expected to diverge
anyway, then I don't see a point in adding stuff that wouldn't be used
with Drizzle specifically.
++ to your thoughts. One of my goals is to minimize moving parts / the
amount of work needed to keep things up to date (and I have to do this
for several projects). For the cluster_* tests, they aren't tied to
Galera. They're written in a generic fashion so one can test
replication against Galera, mysql-built-in, etc...provided you've
written appropriate methods (set_master, start_slave, etc) for the
server type. Once I have time to do this for Drizzle, we'll have a
nifty suite for the slave plugin.
Also, I took a look at the branch and I had removed everything
percona_test related. The only additional deletion was removing some
mysql data files. I will be cleaning up / consolidating the server code
soon, so that should cut out a bit as well.
2) We've been discussing this for Percona projects: Have the test code
live outside the tree and simply keep a config file in the drizzle tree that
says things like "I am a drizzle server. This is my basedir. Run these
suites, etc"
I like the tests being in the main tree. For same reasons that I have
now included rpm and deb stuff into the tree. Since we have become
reasonably good at requiring developers to also create tests as part
of their merge proposals, I wouldn't want to have arrangements where
you hear sentences like: "This is the new feature I've developed and I
promise that some day I will also add some tests to this other
branch."
Yes, that introduces gaps that rely as much on prayer and miracles as
process when you put it that way. Ah, how much easier life was when it
was *just* Drizzle that I was beating on ; )
I'll have an updated branch with #1 done tomorrow. Let me know what you
guys think about #2.
henrik
Thanks for the input,
Patrick
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
