[Puppet Users] Re: Behavior Driven Infrastructure

[Ryan Dooley]

Agreed.  Great collection of testing links.

Cheers,
Ryan

On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Christian Kauhaus wrote:

> 
> Patrick Debois schrieb:
>> I've put my collection of infrastructure testing links online:
>> http://www.jedi.be/blog/2009/11/12/collection-of-test-driven-infrastructure-links/
> 
> Great compilation. Thank you for sharing it with us. :-)
> 
> Regards
> 
> Christian
> 
> -- 
> Dipl.-Inf. Christian Kauhaus <>< · k...@gocept.com · systems administration
> gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
> http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 11 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
> Zope and Plone consulting and development
> 
> > 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Puppet Users] Re: Behavior Driven Infrastructure

[Christian Kauhaus]

Patrick Debois schrieb:
> I've put my collection of infrastructure testing links online:
> http://www.jedi.be/blog/2009/11/12/collection-of-test-driven-infrastructure-links/

Great compilation. Thank you for sharing it with us. :-)

Regards

Christian

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. Christian Kauhaus <>< · k...@gocept.com · systems administration
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 11 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Puppet Users] Re: Behavior Driven Infrastructure

[Patrick Debois]

FYI: for those looking for examples and more discussions.

I've put my collection of infrastructure testing links online:
http://www.jedi.be/blog/2009/11/12/collection-of-test-driven-infrastructure-links/



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Puppet Users] Re: Behavior Driven Infrastructure

[Christian Kauhaus]

Julian Simpson schrieb:
> Those TDD style tests can be pretty ugly.  In theory you can use them
> as a spec to describe what code does, but in practice, no.  So a guy
> called Dan North coined the term Behaviour Driven Development, and
> focussed on the language used to help Business Analysts or other guys
> in suits to specify.  This is where the Given/When/Then syntax comes
> from.

We use Puppet at our site quite extensively and try to start
implementing a feature by writing a custom Nagios check[1]. This starts
as a red one. After that we modify the manifests so that the check
passes. I think this is pretty much a TDD style of development. What
part of the procedure would I need to change in a BDD style of
development? Is this just another representation of the checks? Are
there differences in the process?

Regards

Christian

[1] With the Nagios::Plugin Perl library, this is just a breeze.
-- 
Dipl.-Inf. Christian Kauhaus <>< · k...@gocept.com · systems administration
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 11 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Puppet Users] Re: Behavior Driven Infrastructure

[Lindsay Holmwood]

2009/11/6 Martin Englund :
>>
> It is indeed better to work on this jointly. You are much further
> along the way, so I'll clone your cucumber-nagios repository and work
> in integrating the stuff I've done into your code. You'll be hearing
> from me shortly...

So i've added some SSH steps to cucumber-nagios, along the lines of
what Martin blogged about a few days ago.

I've published a blog post about the new feature, and how this could
potentially be used withina Behaviour Driven Infrastructure
techniques:

http://holmwood.id.au/~lindsay/2009/11/09/behaviour-driven-infrastructure-through-cucumber/

Cheers,
Lindsay

-- 
http://holmwood.id.au/~lindsay/ (me)

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Puppet Users] Re: Behavior Driven Infrastructure

[Julian Simpson]

My understanding is that Test Driven Development hit the mainstream
(did smalltalk have a unit test framework?) with JUnit.[1]  Junit
allowed developers to automate their unit tests.  All the unit tests
for your project should run in seconds, if your codebase and tests are
loosely coupled.

e.g. testThatTheFooObjectReturnsABarWhenPassedABaz

Those TDD style tests can be pretty ugly.  In theory you can use them
as a spec to describe what code does, but in practice, no.  So a guy
called Dan North coined the term Behaviour Driven Development, and
focussed on the language used to help Business Analysts or other guys
in suits to specify.  This is where the Given/When/Then syntax comes
from.

He worked on JBehave as an alternative to JUnit so you can specify
behavior.  But Rspec and Cucumber are where the notion has taken off.
I'd write more but I have to make my kids' dinner :)

J.


[1] http://www.junit.org/

2009/11/9 Christian Kauhaus :
>
> Isaac Christoffersen schrieb:
>> to validate the server configuration.  The combination of TDD and BDD
>> with server rollouts is very attractive.
>
> I think the whole topic is really hot. :-)
>
> It would probably a good idea to expand what the difference between TDD
> and BDD in systems management actually is about.
>
> Not everyone here on the list is fine with the subtle differences in
> terminology (for example, me ;-) )
>
> Regards
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inf. Christian Kauhaus <>< · k...@gocept.com · systems administration
> gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
> http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 11 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
> Zope and Plone consulting and development
>
> >
>



-- 
Julian Simpson
Software Build and Deployment
http://www.build-doctor.com

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Puppet Users] Re: Behavior Driven Infrastructure

[Christian Kauhaus]

Isaac Christoffersen schrieb:
> to validate the server configuration.  The combination of TDD and BDD 
> with server rollouts is very attractive.

I think the whole topic is really hot. :-)

It would probably a good idea to expand what the difference between TDD
and BDD in systems management actually is about.

Not everyone here on the list is fine with the subtle differences in
terminology (for example, me ;-) )

Regards

Christian

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. Christian Kauhaus <>< · k...@gocept.com · systems administration
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 11 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Puppet Users] Re: Behavior Driven Infrastructure

[Isaac Christoffersen]

I've been thinking about using Hudson for this, so its good to know that 
there are others out there doing this.

3 projects that I've bookmarked to look at for unit testing frameworks 
for the OS are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA
http://autotest.kernel.org/
http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Main_Page

I haven't had time to do much more than scan the web site, but they seem 
to be worth watching.

I've also started including test.pp scripts as part of each module.  
These scripts check directories or do some execs (i.e. wgets, pings, 
lookups).  These scripts then run with every puppet update push.  
However, this isn't ideal for production and there needs to be a better 
way to trigger the running of unit tests.   But it has been helpful in 
validating iptables configuration and ensuring services and their 
clients are on the same network.



On 11/8/09 7:43 AM, Julian Simpson wrote:
> I use Hudson.
>
> I've used Test::Unit to wrap validations of generated config files in
> the past.  I want to know as early as possible if something isn't
> going to work.
>
> Functionally testing the config from the outside in might be easy but
> slow.   You can deploy to a VM and actually test it using the goodness
> of cucumber.  I'm still looking for the equivalent of unit tests: how
> do you quickly test function from the inside to give enough confidence
> and a fast feedback loop?  Maybe we need to build out Patrick's
> approach with a library of command-line tools to verify that
> everything works.
>
> J.
>
>
> 2009/11/7 Isaac Christoffersen:
>
>> I'd be interested in hearing more about this.  I've been working on a
>> project in which we do a lot of automated server builds and
>> configuration using various OSS tools, including puppet.  However, one
>> thing that I've been looking for is a way to write a set of test suites
>> to validate the server configuration.  The combination of TDD and BDD
>> with server rollouts is very attractive.
>>
>> I'd also be curious to know what CI server people are using to help
>> coordinate these intermediate builds and tests.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/09 11:00 AM, Patrick Debois wrote:
>>  
>>> for what it's worth:
>>>
>>> for a while I was experimenting with cucumber to test scripts running
>>> on linux machines. And yes , IMHO it is the way to go .
>>>
>>> It worked well with the behavior testing just a you guys described.
>>> still just as in regular development, bdd can be complemented with
>>> tdd.
>>> The way i did the tdd, was by using the exit codes of the shell
>>> commands. I created an abstraction in ruby for execute (local, remote)
>>> and  upload, download of files.
>>>
>>> If the command did not have exit 0 (the default) then i imagined the
>>> test being failed.
>>> Using snapshots of the virtual machines, I ran the scripts against a
>>> virtual machine  (used virtualbox), with the ability to do a rollback.
>>> I know this is not the way puppet normally operates, but I used the
>>> (if i recall correctly) the puppetrun command to execute it and see
>>> what happened
>>> If all of these exit codes where ok (similar to unit tests), i ran the
>>> bdd tests to see if everything was correct.
>>>
>>> By integrating the tdd, and the bdd within a CI-system, I was able to
>>> have it run continuously and rebuild the system over and over again.
>>>
>>> Another thing I want to mention is that you can easily abstract
>>> commands in a custom dsl, but I really like to see what actual
>>> commands got executed.
>>> This is slightly off topic maybe, but by logging/running the actual
>>> commands and have the whole environment build like that (including
>>> making a floppy, booting the vms)
>>> it allowed me to create a kind of install document with the actual
>>> commands instead of pointing to a newly invented DSL.
>>> So I say yes to an abstraction layer, but no to hiding the actual
>>> commands.
>>>
>>> just my 2 c
>>>
>>> On Nov 6, 3:56 pm, Lindsay Holmwoodwrote:
>>>
>>>
 2009/11/6 Martin Englund:






  
> Folks,
>
>
  
> I've been struggling a bit with how we're using puppet (at my job):
> how do you validate that puppet has done what it is supposed to, and
> even troublesome, how you validate that it has done what you intended
> it to do?
>
>
  
> Since I'm the only one who is writing the puppet profiles and working
> with it on a daily basis, I'm the only one who can decipher the puppet
> logs. I often get the question: how do we know when the system is
> ready for production?
>
>
  
> I've been playing around[1] with cucumber&webrat, and have pieced
> together a way to do behavior driven infrastructure testing. Puppet
> takes care of getting the system configured correctly, but there are
> often other pieces involved, like opening firewall ports, adding DNS

[Puppet Users] Re: Behavior Driven Infrastructure

[Julian Simpson]

I use Hudson.

I've used Test::Unit to wrap validations of generated config files in
the past.  I want to know as early as possible if something isn't
going to work.

Functionally testing the config from the outside in might be easy but
slow.   You can deploy to a VM and actually test it using the goodness
of cucumber.  I'm still looking for the equivalent of unit tests: how
do you quickly test function from the inside to give enough confidence
and a fast feedback loop?  Maybe we need to build out Patrick's
approach with a library of command-line tools to verify that
everything works.

J.


2009/11/7 Isaac Christoffersen :
>
> I'd be interested in hearing more about this.  I've been working on a
> project in which we do a lot of automated server builds and
> configuration using various OSS tools, including puppet.  However, one
> thing that I've been looking for is a way to write a set of test suites
> to validate the server configuration.  The combination of TDD and BDD
> with server rollouts is very attractive.
>
> I'd also be curious to know what CI server people are using to help
> coordinate these intermediate builds and tests.
>
>
>
> On 11/7/09 11:00 AM, Patrick Debois wrote:
>> for what it's worth:
>>
>> for a while I was experimenting with cucumber to test scripts running
>> on linux machines. And yes , IMHO it is the way to go .
>>
>> It worked well with the behavior testing just a you guys described.
>> still just as in regular development, bdd can be complemented with
>> tdd.
>> The way i did the tdd, was by using the exit codes of the shell
>> commands. I created an abstraction in ruby for execute (local, remote)
>> and  upload, download of files.
>>
>> If the command did not have exit 0 (the default) then i imagined the
>> test being failed.
>> Using snapshots of the virtual machines, I ran the scripts against a
>> virtual machine  (used virtualbox), with the ability to do a rollback.
>> I know this is not the way puppet normally operates, but I used the
>> (if i recall correctly) the puppetrun command to execute it and see
>> what happened
>> If all of these exit codes where ok (similar to unit tests), i ran the
>> bdd tests to see if everything was correct.
>>
>> By integrating the tdd, and the bdd within a CI-system, I was able to
>> have it run continuously and rebuild the system over and over again.
>>
>> Another thing I want to mention is that you can easily abstract
>> commands in a custom dsl, but I really like to see what actual
>> commands got executed.
>> This is slightly off topic maybe, but by logging/running the actual
>> commands and have the whole environment build like that (including
>> making a floppy, booting the vms)
>> it allowed me to create a kind of install document with the actual
>> commands instead of pointing to a newly invented DSL.
>> So I say yes to an abstraction layer, but no to hiding the actual
>> commands.
>>
>> just my 2 c
>>
>> On Nov 6, 3:56 pm, Lindsay Holmwood  wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/11/6 Martin Englund:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Folks,

>>>
 I've been struggling a bit with how we're using puppet (at my job):
 how do you validate that puppet has done what it is supposed to, and
 even troublesome, how you validate that it has done what you intended
 it to do?

>>>
 Since I'm the only one who is writing the puppet profiles and working
 with it on a daily basis, I'm the only one who can decipher the puppet
 logs. I often get the question: how do we know when the system is
 ready for production?

>>>
 I've been playing around[1] with cucumber&  webrat, and have pieced
 together a way to do behavior driven infrastructure testing. Puppet
 takes care of getting the system configured correctly, but there are
 often other pieces involved, like opening firewall ports, adding DNS
 entries, sendmail routing, etc. Which must be done outside of puppet
 to get the system ready for release.

>>>
 When you write code, you always use unit testing&  integration testing
 to verify that the application is working as expected, but why don't
 we use that when we install a system?

>>>
 What are you using to verify that your system is correctly configured
 and behaves the way you want?

>>>
 [1]

>>> [although i've commented on the excellent blog entry, i'm posting here]
>>>
>>> Hi Martin,
>>> It looks like there's a bit of crossover here with a project i've been
>>> working on the last few months called cucumber-nagios[0]. It takes the
>>> result of a Cucumber run and outputs it in the Nagios plugin format.
>>> Essentially you use it to express your intentions in plain language,
>>> and verify your intentions periodically through your monitoring
>>> system. Just like what you've posted about. :-)
>>>
>>> Anyhow, I spoke about cucumber-nagios at the excellent Devopsdays in
>>> Belgium last weekend, and I

[Puppet Users] Re: Behavior Driven Infrastructure

[Isaac Christoffersen]

I'd be interested in hearing more about this.  I've been working on a 
project in which we do a lot of automated server builds and 
configuration using various OSS tools, including puppet.  However, one 
thing that I've been looking for is a way to write a set of test suites 
to validate the server configuration.  The combination of TDD and BDD 
with server rollouts is very attractive.

I'd also be curious to know what CI server people are using to help 
coordinate these intermediate builds and tests.



On 11/7/09 11:00 AM, Patrick Debois wrote:
> for what it's worth:
>
> for a while I was experimenting with cucumber to test scripts running
> on linux machines. And yes , IMHO it is the way to go .
>
> It worked well with the behavior testing just a you guys described.
> still just as in regular development, bdd can be complemented with
> tdd.
> The way i did the tdd, was by using the exit codes of the shell
> commands. I created an abstraction in ruby for execute (local, remote)
> and  upload, download of files.
>
> If the command did not have exit 0 (the default) then i imagined the
> test being failed.
> Using snapshots of the virtual machines, I ran the scripts against a
> virtual machine  (used virtualbox), with the ability to do a rollback.
> I know this is not the way puppet normally operates, but I used the
> (if i recall correctly) the puppetrun command to execute it and see
> what happened
> If all of these exit codes where ok (similar to unit tests), i ran the
> bdd tests to see if everything was correct.
>
> By integrating the tdd, and the bdd within a CI-system, I was able to
> have it run continuously and rebuild the system over and over again.
>
> Another thing I want to mention is that you can easily abstract
> commands in a custom dsl, but I really like to see what actual
> commands got executed.
> This is slightly off topic maybe, but by logging/running the actual
> commands and have the whole environment build like that (including
> making a floppy, booting the vms)
> it allowed me to create a kind of install document with the actual
> commands instead of pointing to a newly invented DSL.
> So I say yes to an abstraction layer, but no to hiding the actual
> commands.
>
> just my 2 c
>
> On Nov 6, 3:56 pm, Lindsay Holmwood  wrote:
>
>> 2009/11/6 Martin Englund:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>  
>>> I've been struggling a bit with how we're using puppet (at my job):
>>> how do you validate that puppet has done what it is supposed to, and
>>> even troublesome, how you validate that it has done what you intended
>>> it to do?
>>>
>>  
>>> Since I'm the only one who is writing the puppet profiles and working
>>> with it on a daily basis, I'm the only one who can decipher the puppet
>>> logs. I often get the question: how do we know when the system is
>>> ready for production?
>>>
>>  
>>> I've been playing around[1] with cucumber&  webrat, and have pieced
>>> together a way to do behavior driven infrastructure testing. Puppet
>>> takes care of getting the system configured correctly, but there are
>>> often other pieces involved, like opening firewall ports, adding DNS
>>> entries, sendmail routing, etc. Which must be done outside of puppet
>>> to get the system ready for release.
>>>
>>  
>>> When you write code, you always use unit testing&  integration testing
>>> to verify that the application is working as expected, but why don't
>>> we use that when we install a system?
>>>
>>  
>>> What are you using to verify that your system is correctly configured
>>> and behaves the way you want?
>>>
>>  
>>> [1]
>>>
>> [although i've commented on the excellent blog entry, i'm posting here]
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>> It looks like there's a bit of crossover here with a project i've been
>> working on the last few months called cucumber-nagios[0]. It takes the
>> result of a Cucumber run and outputs it in the Nagios plugin format.
>> Essentially you use it to express your intentions in plain language,
>> and verify your intentions periodically through your monitoring
>> system. Just like what you've posted about. :-)
>>
>> Anyhow, I spoke about cucumber-nagios at the excellent Devopsdays in
>> Belgium last weekend, and I got talking with people about expanding
>> the library of steps to cover things like logins over SSH, file
>> manipulation, and mail delivery. It would be cool if we could
>> centralise our efforts and focus on building an awesome library of
>> reusable steps to test our infrastructure.
>>
>> Your point about doing behaviour driven development when writing
>> software is right on the mark. From an infrastructure perspective, I
>> like to think of Cucumber as the testing tool, and Puppet as the
>> programming language.
>>
>> Anyhow, i'd be interested to hear what other people think about this idea!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lindsay
>>
>> [0]

[Puppet Users] Re: Behavior Driven Infrastructure

[Patrick Debois]

for what it's worth:

for a while I was experimenting with cucumber to test scripts running
on linux machines. And yes , IMHO it is the way to go .

It worked well with the behavior testing just a you guys described.
still just as in regular development, bdd can be complemented with
tdd.
The way i did the tdd, was by using the exit codes of the shell
commands. I created an abstraction in ruby for execute (local, remote)
and  upload, download of files.

If the command did not have exit 0 (the default) then i imagined the
test being failed.
Using snapshots of the virtual machines, I ran the scripts against a
virtual machine  (used virtualbox), with the ability to do a rollback.
I know this is not the way puppet normally operates, but I used the
(if i recall correctly) the puppetrun command to execute it and see
what happened
If all of these exit codes where ok (similar to unit tests), i ran the
bdd tests to see if everything was correct.

By integrating the tdd, and the bdd within a CI-system, I was able to
have it run continuously and rebuild the system over and over again.

Another thing I want to mention is that you can easily abstract
commands in a custom dsl, but I really like to see what actual
commands got executed.
This is slightly off topic maybe, but by logging/running the actual
commands and have the whole environment build like that (including
making a floppy, booting the vms)
it allowed me to create a kind of install document with the actual
commands instead of pointing to a newly invented DSL.
So I say yes to an abstraction layer, but no to hiding the actual
commands.

just my 2 c

On Nov 6, 3:56 pm, Lindsay Holmwood  wrote:
> 2009/11/6 Martin Englund :
>
>
>
>
>
> > Folks,
>
> > I've been struggling a bit with how we're using puppet (at my job):
> > how do you validate that puppet has done what it is supposed to, and
> > even troublesome, how you validate that it has done what you intended
> > it to do?
>
> > Since I'm the only one who is writing the puppet profiles and working
> > with it on a daily basis, I'm the only one who can decipher the puppet
> > logs. I often get the question: how do we know when the system is
> > ready for production?
>
> > I've been playing around[1] with cucumber & webrat, and have pieced
> > together a way to do behavior driven infrastructure testing. Puppet
> > takes care of getting the system configured correctly, but there are
> > often other pieces involved, like opening firewall ports, adding DNS
> > entries, sendmail routing, etc. Which must be done outside of puppet
> > to get the system ready for release.
>
> > When you write code, you always use unit testing & integration testing
> > to verify that the application is working as expected, but why don't
> > we use that when we install a system?
>
> > What are you using to verify that your system is correctly configured
> > and behaves the way you want?
>
> > [1] 
>
> [although i've commented on the excellent blog entry, i'm posting here]
>
> Hi Martin,
> It looks like there's a bit of crossover here with a project i've been
> working on the last few months called cucumber-nagios[0]. It takes the
> result of a Cucumber run and outputs it in the Nagios plugin format.
> Essentially you use it to express your intentions in plain language,
> and verify your intentions periodically through your monitoring
> system. Just like what you've posted about. :-)
>
> Anyhow, I spoke about cucumber-nagios at the excellent Devopsdays in
> Belgium last weekend, and I got talking with people about expanding
> the library of steps to cover things like logins over SSH, file
> manipulation, and mail delivery. It would be cool if we could
> centralise our efforts and focus on building an awesome library of
> reusable steps to test our infrastructure.
>
> Your point about doing behaviour driven development when writing
> software is right on the mark. From an infrastructure perspective, I
> like to think of Cucumber as the testing tool, and Puppet as the
> programming language.
>
> Anyhow, i'd be interested to hear what other people think about this idea!
>
> Cheers,
> Lindsay
>
> [0]http://auxesis.github.com/cucumber-nagios
>
> --http://holmwood.id.au/~lindsay/(me)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---