[Pulp-dev] pulp 3 PR testing with pulp-smash

[Daniel Alley]

Would it be possible to have the required tests be Pulp core only, but to
have an expanded set of non-mandatory smash tests which includes pulp_file?

Which would mean, the pulp_file smash test results would be there as a
visual indicator, but wouldn't cause problems over the next few months
before the plugin API is fully stabilized.


On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> tl;dr: which set of pulp-smash tests should run against pulpcore PRs?
> pulpcore + pulp_file or just pulpcore?
>
> Jeremy and I are working to enable a new check for PRs against Pulp's
> 3.0-dev branch. This is going to be a jenkins job that installs pulpcore
> from the PR and then runs pulp-smash smoke tests against it.
>
> The smoke tests include both pulpcore and pulp_file tests. When testing
> PRs for pulp repository, should pulp_file also be installed thus allowing
> pulp-smash all the tests? The other option is to not install pulp_file and
> allow only the pulpcore tests to run.
>
> If both pulpcore and pulp_file tests are required to pass to merge a PR,
> then we can get into a situation where the plugin API is intentionally
> changing and the tests can't pass until the change is introduced to
> pulp_file also. In such situations we could require the pulpcore-plugin
> package to have it's version bumped, which would mark the build as passing.
>
> If only pulpcore tests are run we could get into a situation where the PR
> breaks the plugin API and we don't learn this until after the code is
> merged.
>
> Which set of tests should run for pulpcore PRs?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180222/6e16ee39/attachment.htm>