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

[David Davis]

In theory, we could have one jenkins job that makes two calls to Github’s
status API—one for the pulpcore smash test result and one for the pulp_file
smash test. That said, I am fine with 2 jenkins jobs too.


David

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
> Yes we can. We would need to set it up as two separate Jenkins jobs. I
> believe GitHub allows setting a subset of checks as gating.
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180222/5923900c/attachment.htm>