Chris, Zeljko, and I actually discussed some of these finer points earlier
today. See my answers inline.
* I guess it's a very early stage proposal, but I'd come up with a tag
naming convention that clearly indicates what those
tags do, like
@role-echo (which marries the whole thing to Vagrant and its
nomenclature) or @extension-echo.
A clearer naming convention is definitely a good idea. Not only will it
avoid name collisions but I think it will promote a greater inference of
what the tags mean—people will be less likely to copy, paste, ignore.
Consider this might have applications beyond the scope of mw-vagrant, I'd
prefer "@extension-" over "@role-".
* How would puppet alter default cucumber behavior?
We can configure puppet to write a default cucumber config
<https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber/wiki/cucumber.yml> in the working
directory for each test suite. The config will specify a default
command-line invocation with `--tags` options to limit the scope of the
run. It's possible that we'll need some sort of "@core" tag for
features
that don't have any extension dependency, but there may be another way—I'll
have to experiment a bit.
* If we don't want to confuse people why some tests don't run, maybe
we could store the list of available tags, check for available roles
before running cucumber and show a message saying that tests requiring
following (disabled) roles, will not run?
Zeljko brought this up as well. We can probably implement some sort of
after or exit hook to inform the user why some tests were skipped—based on
the invocation maybe—and output it in yellow or some other alarming but not
shit-your-pants alarming color. :)
--
Juliusz
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Dan Duvall <dduvall(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
There is another alternative that might be worth
getting opinions
on—Juliusz
and I both thought it seemed a bit complicated,
but it would have some
additional benefits, so here goes.
Firstly, we'd add cucumber tags to indicate the additional role
dependencies
of a given feature (or individual scenario). For
instance,
editor_ve.feature
would include a `@visualeditor` tag and
notification.feature would
include
an `@echo` tag. Secondly, we'd restrict the
default behavior of cucumber
(via puppet) to run only those tests that are tagged with any of the
currently enabled roles.
The major upside to this approach would be that only those tests suited
to
the current development environment get
run—ostensibly these are the only
tests the developer would care to run—translating to far fewer false
negatives and more confidence (and utility) in the test suite. With the
dual-roles approach, it's highly likely that developers will continue to
run
into these soft-dependency issues. And, as
already stated, a single-role
approach is less flexible and will bloat the provision and git-update
times.
The biggest downside to this approach is pretty obvious, I think: It
would
require the author of the test to know and
include any role dependencies
in
the list of tags. Is this a reasonable
expectation of developers and/or
project managers (who might one day be writing features)? Another
possible
downside is that altering cucumber's default
behavior might confuse
people
as to why some tests are being skipped.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Arthur Richards <
arichards(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
>
> I agree with Max - or alternatively (or in addition) setting up a
> mobilefrontend-production role to set things up as close as possible to
> prod.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Max Semenik <msemenik(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> I personally would prefer 2, because buncing everything into one role
>> would be too inflexible. I don't see much maintenance overhead if
compared
> with
1.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Juliusz Gonera <jgonera(a)wikimedia.org
wrote:
>
> I talked to Dan Duvall today and he said that many mobile browser
> tests fail on default vagrant instance because other extensions that
> are not hard dependencies of MF are not activated by default when
> activating the mobilefrontend role (extensions such as Echo, GeoData,
> VisualEditor). There are two things we can do:
>
> 1. Make other extensions that mobile uses dependencies of
> mobilefrontend role in vagrant
> 2. Create a separate role, e.g. mobilefrontend-browsertests, that will
> list mobilefrontend and all those extensions as its dependencies
>
> I was wondering if there is anyone who uses vagrant and would like to
> have MF enabled, but not all the other extensions. If not, 1. seems
> like a simpler solution.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Juliusz
--
Arthur Richards
Team Practices Lead
[[User:Awjrichards]]
IRC: awjr
+1-415-839-6885 x6687
--
Dan Duvall
Automation Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
--
Dan Duvall
Automation Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation <http://wikimediafoundation.org>
