Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-19 Thread Tim Penhey
Hi folks, Earlier today I was investigating this CRITICAL BLOCKER bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1475724 At first I thought that bug was referring to a different one, which I fixed by skipping a part of a test that was using chmod to make unit enter an error state. I filed

Re: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread William Reade
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Tim Penhey wrote: > Hi folks, > > Earlier today I was investigating this CRITICAL BLOCKER bug: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1475724 I'll talk about the specific bug to begin with, but there's a much more important bit further down. If you'

Re: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread Martin Packman
On 20/07/2015, Tim Penhey wrote: > > Earlier today I was investigating this CRITICAL BLOCKER bug: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1475724 > > At first I thought that bug was referring to a different one, which I > fixed by skipping a part of a test that was using chmod to make un

Re: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread Horacio Duran
On 20/07/15 07:57, William Reade wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Tim Penhey > wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Earlier today I was investigating this CRITICAL BLOCKER bug: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1475724 > > > I'll talk a

Re: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread Martin Packman
On 20/07/2015, Martin Packman wrote: > > So, I'm not sure what bugs we want to file to track the work to get > master in a good state. As best as I can work out we have: Okay, becoming clearer now, 1) Windows regression from uniter-status change: Fixed by Tim a

Re: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread roger peppe
On 20 July 2015 at 14:11, Martin Packman wrote: > The logs are giant, > the actual failure lines tend to be non-informative with the real > cause several screens up in the log, multiple tests have basically the > same problems with common code... FWIW I often delete all lines containing the strin

Fwd: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread roger peppe
[as roger.pe...@canonical.com this time :-) I wish there was a way to configure gmail to always send as a particular user when mailing to a particular email address] On 20 July 2015 at 14:11, Martin Packman wrote: > The logs are giant, > the actual failure lines tend to be non-informative with th

Re: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread Nate Finch
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:57 AM roger peppe wrote: > On 20 July 2015 at 14:11, Martin Packman > wrote: > > The logs are giant, > > the actual failure lines tend to be non-informative with the real > > cause several screens up in the log, multiple tests have basically the > > same problems with

Re: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread Nate Finch
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:42 AM Tim Penhey wrote: > > Aside from all this work, it is becoming REALLY IMPORTANT that we stop > writing terrible, wasteful, full integration type tests when what we > really care about testing is some aspect of uniter internals. I know > that it is just simpler to

Re: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread roger peppe
On 20 July 2015 at 19:41, Nate Finch wrote: > You should be able to get to 80% code coverage (and near 100% logic coverage) > without using anything outside your package. Shouldn't those numbers be the other way around? I don't see how you could possibly get to ~100% of logic coverage if only 80%

Re: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread William Reade
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Horacio Duran wrote:The immediate bit: > > So, I agree we have a big elephant on the room and we might have all been > looking the other way (most likely distracted by the pack of velocirraptors > on the other side). > We ought to sit and talk about this tech-debt

Re: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread William Reade
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:57 PM, roger peppe wrote: > > That's somewhat harder with the uniter, because its very state-dependent > channel operations make it awkward to write a uniform outer select loop. > > If I were to do it, off the top of my head, I might consider making > uniter.Mode > (which

Re: Uniter tests for update-status hook - BLOCKER

2015-07-20 Thread Nate Finch
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:05 PM roger peppe wrote: > On 20 July 2015 at 19:41, Nate Finch wrote: > > You should be able to get to 80% code coverage (and near 100% logic > coverage) > > without using anything outside your package. > > Shouldn't those numbers be the other way around? I don't see h