I'll take Depcheck, but why remove the original author? :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Flink" tflink@redhat.com To: autoqa-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 5:40:08 PM Subject: Re: require maintainer defined for each test & clean up current tests
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:11:21 -0500 (EST) Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com wrote:
Before releasing new version of AutoQA, I want to solve one more issue, and that is the current mess in tests we manage. Honestly stated, we have some tests that we have no idea whether they work, what exactly they do, and how to fix them if needed. Some of them are probably not being used at all, and we still need to care about them when re-factoring our framework. Worst of all, for many of them we have no idea who should be responsible for keeping them in shape.
Oy, that table did not survive the reformatting to 80 columns. I use compose_tree on a regular basis, it does still work and I can take over maintenance of it. If we don't think it belongs in autoqa, I'll just set it up as a separate tool.
I can also take depcheck if jskladan doesn't want it.
My proposal is:
- Every test will have a maintainer defined. In its 'control' file
we will change AUTHOR line to MAINTAINER line (patch is ready). This will ensure that we always know who to talk to when the test seems broken. It doesn't mean you can't work on a test you don't maintain, no. But at least the contact point will always be defined. I tried to place my best guess in the matrix.
Please speak up who wants to maintain some test.
Makes sense to me.
- Tests without maintainer will be archived and deleted. They can
stay in a separate git branch and wait for their future revival (if any), but they won't be in master.
Makes sense, I'm not sure there is a whole lot of point in running tests that don't have a maintainer or don't seem to be working.
- To save resources, we should also archive tests that don't seem
to be currently much useful. We can re-enable them once required architecture is in place. More specifically:
Architecture and/or one or more maintainers. With our setup the way it currently is, I'd be against having tests which don't have someone that can fix bugs in them.
- rpmlint, rpmguard - the results are sent to opted-in maintainers,
some of them said it's useful. I'd keep them enabled.
Works for me.
- repoclosure, conflicts - this lists potential dependency problems
and file conflicts for the whole repository. Until now no one cared. With resultsdb frontend we can finally have a page that lists all the results day by day. It means someone can go through the results occasionally and file some bugs. The question is: who? It's nice to have some results, but if we just *hope* someone will do something about it, that seems too uncertain for me. They are also somewhat obsoleted by depcheck. I'm sitting on the fence here.
Honestly, I don't think that I've ever looked at these tests so I can't really speak to their utility or functionality.
- compose_tree - this tries to build boot.iso and pxeboot images.
This is basically a releng test that we execute. Previous maintainer was James, but I doubt we should ask him for future maintenance. Currently it is broken. Even if it worked, was there someone reporting the issues? It's easier to look into releng logs online: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/branched-20120227/logs/ Does the above link render compose_tree test useless?
It works, AFAIK - I used it to build F17 images last week. I've taken the ticket that you filed and will look into it. FWIW, I've had problems with compose_tree when everything in mock doesn't match the ISO I'm trying to build (down to the kernel version).
For the next autoqa release I'd like to focus mainly on easy deployment of tests, so that we (for our tests) and some other teams (like anaconda) can easily update tests without tedious process of "new autoqa release". After that I expect some of the tests to return.
I'm not disagreeing with the suggestion, just wondering about the timing of it. Do we really want to be doing that in the middle of F17 testing. Unless we want to work under the assumption that some people are going to stay mostly on AutoQA instead of testing F17.
Then again, if we don't start it at some point, it may not get done. There is also the question of how to implement this but I think that might be outside the scope of this thread.
Tim
autoqa-devel mailing list autoqa-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel