I think we can do silly automation in one specific plugin, after some
trial, expand the idea or not:
pulpcore on 6844 [$] via 🐍 v3.8.0 (venv)
❯ git diff --name-only master
CHANGES/6844.feature
functest_requirements.txt
setup.py
pulpcore on 6844 [$] via 🐍 v3.8.0 (venv) took 2s
❯ git diff --nam
+1 from me.
One of the problems I foresee though is that this could make cherry picking
difficult if we have tests that depend on other tests. For example, suppose
you have change A that adds some tests and then change B adds some tests on
top of A's tests. It'll make cherry picking B without A tr
+1
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:39 AM Pavel Picka wrote:
>
> Big +1 to require (at least) one basic/positive functional test if possible.
> Maybe we can set up a review checklist (contains 'check for basic test').
>
> We already have some docs which we can update a bit [0] to be yet more plugin
>
Big +1 to require (at least) one basic/positive functional test if
possible.
Maybe we can set up a review checklist (contains 'check for basic test').
We already have some docs which we can update a bit [0] to be yet more
plugin writer friendly and point back to it from plugins' docs.
Like extendi
I have two goals with this:
1. Improve the stability of pulpcore and it's plugins
2. Enable all downstreams and packagers with tests and information on how
to run those tests, so they can run the automated tests even as the
downstream is curated with a series of backports. This closely follows th
