Hi, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> writes:
> Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> > --- > glep-9999.ebuild | 132 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 132 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 glep-9999.ebuild > > diff --git a/glep-9999.ebuild b/glep-9999.ebuild > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..9ee18ca > --- /dev/null > +++ b/glep-9999.ebuild > @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ > +--- > +GLEP: 9999 > +Title: TEST_SUITE_PRESENT variable > +Author: Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> > +Type: Standards Track > +Status: Draft > +Version: 1 > +Created: 2023-02-19 > +Last-Modified: 2023-02-19 > +Post-History: 2023-02-19 > +Content-Type: text/x-rst > +--- > + > + > +Abstract > +======== > + > +A new ``TEST_SUITE_PRESENT`` variable is introduced to indicate whether > +the package features a test suite. It can be set either by the ebuild, > +the eclass or the default ``src_test`` implementation, and afterwards > +included in the package manager logs. This can aid in analyzing > +the results of automated package testing. > + > + > +Motivation > +========== > + > +The deployment of new Python targets in Gentoo currently involves > +testing of a large number of Gentoo packages against the said target. > +This is currently done manually for the most part. It can be > +particularly time consuming if multiple individuals repeatedly test > +the same package only to determine that it remains incompatible with > +the new interpreter. > + > +The Python team wanted to explore the use of automation to aid this > +testing. Unfortunately, this faces a major problem: for the vast > +of majority of packages, the incompatibilities with new Python versions > +do not exhibit during the installation and can only be detected through > +running the test suite. The results of automated testing are therefore > +only meaningful if the package features a test phase. > + > +For packages using ``distutils-r1`` eclass, the presence of test suite > +can usually be easily determined through grepping for > +``distutils_enable_tests`` call or an explicit ``python_test()`` > +function. Even then, it seems sensible to work towards a more generic > +approach to tell whether a package had a test suite or not, > +and therefore whether a particular successful automated testing result > +means that the package actually passed tests or only confirmed that > +the Python files were copied successfully. > + > +An explicit indication whether a test suite was present can be presented > +by the package manager as part of logs, along with the result of running > +the test phase. Afterwards, these logs can be used to determine which > +packages were actually tested. > + +1. I have had similar aspirations lately, so I'm glad someone else beat me to it :) > + > +Specification > +============= > + > +A new ``TEST_SUITE_PRESENT`` variable is introduced that can be set > +by a ``src_test()`` implementation to indicate whether the package > +featured a test suite. It can take three values: > + > +- ``yes`` indicating that a test suite was run > +- ``indeterminate`` indicating that it was not possible to clearly > + determine whether the test suite was present or not (this could be > + a case e.g. when a generic test command is run and it does not > + indicate whether any tests were found) > +- ``no`` indicating that no test suite was run > + > +This variable *should* be set by eclasses defining the ``src_test()`` > +phase. If the package in question is using ``src_test()`` defined > +by an eclass that does not declare it explicitly, the PM must assume > +``indeterminate``. > + > +The variable *may* be set by an ebuild defining the ``src_test()`` > +phase. If the ebuild does not define it explicitly, the PM must assume > +``yes``. > + > +The default ``src_test()`` implementation as defined by the PMS sets > +the value to ``indeterminate`` if it runs a ``check`` or ``test`` > +target, and to ``no`` if neither of the targets is found. > + > + > +Rationale > +========= > + > +The use of ternary flag makes it possible to clearly represent all three > +possible outcomes while navigating the defaults defined in the GLEP. > +The flag is set in ``src_test()``, so that runtime conditions (such > +as the results obtained from the actual test runner) can be used to > +determine the actual value. > + > +The defaults were defined based on the following assumptions: > + > +1. The presence of ``check`` target is common in autotools projects but > + it does not guarantee that the target actually does anything, let > + alone run a proper test suite. However, the lack of any test target > + clearly indicates that no tests were run. > + > +2. Eclass ``src_test`` implementations can be very generic and succeed > + without actually performing any testing. It is therefore reasonable > + to default to ``indeterminate`` result when they are used, > + and recommend them to explicitly override the variable. > + > +3. Explicit ``src_test`` declared in ebuild can generally be assumed > + to actually run tests, with the exception of declaring the function > + to prevent ``default_src_test`` from running. It therefore makes > + sense to default to ``yes`` but allow ebuilds to override the value > + in the latter case. > + > + > +Backwards Compatibility > +======================= > + > +This GLEP is entirely optional. The package managers not implementing > +it will treat the variable as a regular bash variable set by the test > +phase and ignore it. > + > + > +Reference Implementation > +======================== > + > +TODO > + > + > +Copyright > +========= > + > +This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 > +International License. To view a copy of this license, visit > +https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. This approach looks OK to me. -- Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
