Marco, I like your proposal with one change - we don't need the test.yaml changes. Instead I would suggest we add 'unit-test' to the list of default bundletester targets. So bundletester will run proof, lint, test, and unit-test (charm author should choose test or unit-test, not both). Bundletester will *not* run functional-test, since it runs everything +x in the tests/ dir, which almost always overlaps with functional-test.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Marco Ceppi <ma...@ondina.co> wrote: > We can also add Makefile checking to charm proof, for an even greater > redundancy. > > To avoid multiple invocations of charm proof (not terrible, IMO) lint > could be broken down further: > > lint: proof code_lint > > proof: > charm proof > > code_lint: > # Your code here > > Then have bundle tester sniff out code_lint, or use the test.yaml > configuration to point lint to code_lint. Doesn't change UX for the > author/contributor but does add a level of complexity. It seems like > Makefile's are the overwhelming method for consolidating tasks for charms, > I'd like to kick off the following proposal for Makefile format to be > placed in charm create templates: > > ``` > test: lint unit-test functional-test > lint: proof code-lint > sync: charm-helpers-sync > > code-lint: > # FILL IN COMMANDS FOR PERFORMING CODE LINT > > unit-test: > # COMMANDS REQUIRED TO UNIT TEST > > charm-helpers-sync: > @scripts/sync.py .... > > functional-test: > juju test > > proof: > charm proof > ``` > > With a test.yml file that contained the following: > > ``` > makefile: > - code-lint > - unit-test > ``` > > And where applicable, add a .venv target for python charms and recommend > the use of having charm deps modeled in requirements.txt and pip installed > to that virtualenv. > > Opinions, additions, concerns? > > On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 11:41:56 AM Wes Mason <wesley.ma...@canonical.com> > wrote: > >> On 22 January 2015 at 16:36, Simon Davy <bloodearn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 22 January 2015 at 16:29, David Britton <david.brit...@canonical.com> >>> wrote: >>> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:17:26PM +0000, Simon Davy wrote: >>> >> On 22 January 2015 at 15:13, David Britton < >>> david.brit...@canonical.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > lint: >>> >> > - make lint >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> Could we also make[1] the charm linter lint the makefile for the >>> >> presence of targets agreed in the outcome of this thread? >>> > >>> > "charm proof" >>> > >>> > I like it. (bundle tester already runs this) >>> >>> Which is interesting, as my lint targets general runs charm proof too, >>> so it'd be run twice in that case? >>> >>> Not a big issue, but if the charm store/review queue is automatically >>> charm-proofing too, perhaps the make lint target should not be? >>> >>> -- >>> Simon >>> >>> >> Whelp it's still nice to have as part of lint when developing the charm, >> and charm-proof isn't exactly the slowest process to run multiple times. >> >> -- >> Juju mailing list >> Juju@lists.ubuntu.com >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/ >> mailman/listinfo/juju >> > > -- > Juju mailing list > Juju@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju > >
-- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
