Re: possible approach for test tags
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Andrew Wilkins andrew.wilk...@canonical.com wrote: Main thing that concerns me is that it's all opt-in. Same here. I guess it doesn't matter too much, as long as CI continues to run all the tests. There's nothing stopping people from skipping running the tests and proposing junk today. Right. A couple of things I'd like to see added to the proposal: - the ability to have negated tags, e.g. -tags=!long or -tags=^long or whatever. I already have that (- instead of !), just not well documented. :) - a meta all tag, or command line flag to set all the tags (e.g. for CI) Great idea. I added base, but that's something else. -eric -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
possible approach for test tags
We've had discussions here a couple of times (since I joined the team) about classifying tests in our suite so they could be run more flexibly. We've also already added explicit handling for a specific kind of test along those same lines: featuretests. Additionally you can think of the CI tests as another test classification. So we're already taking the approach in a limited fashion. I'd like to see something more generic that we could use in the juju test suite. I've put up a proof of concept patch that demonstrates what I think would fit the bill: http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/1647/ If the approach seems reasonable then we could start using it for new tests and as appropriate when touching existing code. -eric -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
