Not a strong opinion but, at least for vnet tests, I agree with Damjan. Florin
> On Mar 26, 2021, at 9:37 AM, Damjan Marion via lists.fd.io > <dmarion=me....@lists.fd.io> wrote: > > > >> On 25.03.2021., at 21:14, Dave Wallace <dwallac...@gmail.com >> <mailto:dwallac...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Damjan, >> >> This initiative originated with the wider adoption of plugin development at >> the request of Dave Barach to allow the development of plugins outside the >> VPP repo. After completing the job for plugins, there were several requests >> to extend that to all of the features. Presumably this was coupled with the >> desire to migrate feature source code from vnet into the plugin arena, but I >> don't recall all of the details of the discussion. > > OK, there are 2 different things. One is testing of out-of-tree plugins, > another one is VPP tree layout. > I fully agree that we need to support testing of out-of-tree plugins. Than > can be fixed as simple as ‘make test > TEST_DIR=/path/to/out-of-tree-plugin/test’. > > I don’t see how those two things relate. > >> >> Unfortunately, this effort stalled across several releases due to lack of >> cycles and I'm just now in the process of completing the job. >> >> I'm perfectly ok accepting a -2 for test code that maintainers prefer to >> leave in .../vpp/test, but I don't see the original requirement to co-locate >> plugin source & test code going away. So the majority of the feature source >> & test code will remain structured that way and the end result will be >> inconsistent at best. > > I’m not trying ot say we should -2, and I know that you submitted those > patches believing that this is the right thing to do. I am just under > impression that we are all not on the same page what is right thing to do. > > >> >> Personally, I think that it makes sense to continue to move features source, >> test code, and documentation to be co-located in a modular and consistent >> sub-tree structure. I also see value in migrating features out of vnet into >> the plugin sub-tree. > > I disagree here, I believe it should stay separate. But this is just my > opinion, I’m fine to be minority here, i just would like to know that we are > all on the same page and that whatever we decide we decided with good > understanding of implications. > > Implications may be: > - licensing implications like the current saga with scapy > - deciding if CMake should install test infra as part of vpp-dev packaging > - dealing with tests which cover multiple source code components or infra > > Mechanical move of file is the easiest part. As currently src/ is currently > one entity handled by CMake, throwing tests in without test infra being part > of src/ looks to me very broken. > > >> >> For what its worth, the changes to test/Makefile gather all of the source as >> soft links into the build tree (.../vpp/build-root/build-test/src), but I >> understand that is not the same your original plan. >> >> Thanks, >> -daw- >> >> On 3/25/2021 3:16 PM, Damjan Marion via lists.fd.io wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> It may be that it is not discussed or i was just ignorant, but I noticed >>> that there is ongoing activity to scatter tests all across the src/. >>> When I started "make test" long long time ago i intentionally put it to >>> separate tree following the pattern from other projects and to be honest >>> it makes me more sense that all tests are contained in the separate tree. >>> >>> Are we sure that this test file scatter activity is right thing to do? >>> Anyone aware of any other project doing the same? >>> >>> — >>> Damjan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#19039): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/19039 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/81611239/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
