Hello, Is there a sane way (or recipe) out there that makes testing a meta-eggs easier? As I see now, I'll need to enter all dependent eggs as: [test] recipe = zc.recipe.testrunner eggs = my-meta-egg [test] dep-egg-1 [test] dep-egg-2 [test] ... zope.interface [??test??] Seems like buildout "knows" which eggs should be there. This would be needed for a pre-installation test on the target system. We need to make sure that all tests pass before going into production. Any help is appreciated. -- Best regards, Adam GROSZER mailto:agroszer@gmail.com -- Quote of the day: Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. - Euripides
On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:14 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
Hello,
Is there a sane way (or recipe) out there that makes testing a meta-eggs easier? As I see now, I'll need to enter all dependent eggs as:
[test] recipe = zc.recipe.testrunner eggs = my-meta-egg [test] dep-egg-1 [test] dep-egg-2 [test] ... zope.interface [??test??]
Seems like buildout "knows" which eggs should be there. This would be needed for a pre-installation test on the target system. We need to make sure that all tests pass before going into production.
Any help is appreciated.
IMO, testing the dependent eggs isn't desirable, however, I don't object to providing an option to do it. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation
Hello Jim, Friday, April 4, 2008, 2:22:06 PM, you wrote: JF> IMO, testing the dependent eggs isn't desirable, however, I don't JF> object to providing an option to do it. How do you propose or in fact how do you do testing just before going into production? Would you please give some hints how to dig that information out in he recipe? JF> Jim JF> -- JF> Jim Fulton JF> Zope Corporation -- Best regards, Adam GROSZER mailto:agroszer@gmail.com -- Quote of the day: "Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?" "That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat. - Lewis Carrol
On Apr 4, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
Hello Jim,
Friday, April 4, 2008, 2:22:06 PM, you wrote:
JF> IMO, testing the dependent eggs isn't desirable, however, I don't JF> object to providing an option to do it.
How do you propose or in fact how do you do testing just before going into production?
For individual packages, I assume that they were tested before release. I prefer to test just the software I'm working on. Of course, I have integration tests of my application.
Would you please give some hints how to dig that information out in he recipe?
I wouldn't want anyone doing this who wasn't willing to spend the time becoming fairly familiar with the setuptools APIs. The full set of packages uses is described by the working set, which is available (or obtainable) to the recipe. To include tests of all dependencies, you would include each of the locations from the working set as test directories for the test t runner, being careful to avoid system packages -- unless you want to test all system packages on which you depend too. Even then, you could get into trouble, as individual package tests might not be runnable without additional facilities you don't have. For example, some packages might have test dependencies that you haven't included. There is no standard way of specifying test dependencies for installed distributions. In general, I find implicitly including packages for testing is fraught with peril. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation
Hello Jim, Sounded like a good idea at first, but now you opened my eyes. I guess I'll stick with the manually added eggs for the tests. Thanks. Friday, April 4, 2008, 3:08:27 PM, you wrote: JF> I wouldn't want anyone doing this who wasn't willing to spend the time JF> becoming fairly familiar with the setuptools APIs. The full set of JF> packages uses is described by the working set, which is available (or JF> obtainable) to the recipe. To include tests of all dependencies, you JF> would include each of the locations from the working set as test JF> directories for the test t runner, being careful to avoid system JF> packages -- unless you want to test all system packages on which you JF> depend too. Even then, you could get into trouble, as individual JF> package tests might not be runnable without additional facilities you JF> don't have. For example, some packages might have test dependencies JF> that you haven't included. There is no standard way of specifying JF> test dependencies for installed distributions. JF> In general, I find implicitly including packages for testing is JF> fraught with peril. -- Best regards, Adam GROSZER mailto:agroszer@gmail.com -- Quote of the day: Only God can make random selections.
On 2008-04-04 14:22:06 +0200, Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> said:
On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:14 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
Hello,
Is there a sane way (or recipe) out there that makes testing a meta-eggs easier? As I see now, I'll need to enter all dependent eggs as:
[test] recipe = zc.recipe.testrunner eggs = my-meta-egg [test] dep-egg-1 [test] dep-egg-2 [test] ... zope.interface [??test??]
Seems like buildout "knows" which eggs should be there. This would be needed for a pre-installation test on the target system. We need to make sure that all tests pass before going into production.
Any help is appreciated.
IMO, testing the dependent eggs isn't desirable, however, I don't object to providing an option to do it.
It might be better to just provide a variable containing all the dependent eggs like ${test:dependent-eggs}. You could do what ever you want then. -- Christian Zagrodnick gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstrasse 29 · 06112 halle/saale www.gocept.com · fon. +49 345 12298894 · fax. +49 345 12298891
On Apr 7, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
On 2008-04-04 14:22:06 +0200, Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> said:
On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:14 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
Hello, Is there a sane way (or recipe) out there that makes testing a meta-eggs easier? As I see now, I'll need to enter all dependent eggs as: [test] recipe = zc.recipe.testrunner eggs = my-meta-egg [test] dep-egg-1 [test] dep-egg-2 [test] ... zope.interface [??test??] Seems like buildout "knows" which eggs should be there. This would be needed for a pre-installation test on the target system. We need to make sure that all tests pass before going into production. Any help is appreciated. IMO, testing the dependent eggs isn't desirable, however, I don't object to providing an option to do it.
It might be better to just provide a variable containing all the dependent eggs like ${test:dependent-eggs}. You could do what ever you want then.
How would that help? Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation
On 2008-04-07 13:12:15 +0200, Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> said:
It might be better to just provide a variable containing all the dependent eggs like ${test:dependent-eggs}. You could do what ever you want then.
How would that help?
Oh, when writing that mail I thought one could do [test] eggs = foo ${test:dependent-eggs} But unfortunatly to understand recursion you have to undertand recursion. So this would only work to test the dependent eggs of another section. But forget about that. Regards, -- Christian Zagrodnick gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstrasse 29 · 06112 halle/saale www.gocept.com · fon. +49 345 12298894 · fax. +49 345 12298891
participants (3)
-
Adam GROSZER -
Christian Zagrodnick -
Jim Fulton