Re: Improving the testability of AutoQA

[Tim Flink]

On 06/03/2011 01:43 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>  
>  Tim, that sounds great, thank you for this work. I agree that
>  replacing parts of koji and bodhi library to serve our testing
>  purposes seems a good way to go. I also considered using custom
>  Koji/Bodhi instances in the past (or using the Bodhi staging instance
>  instead), but it always looks like a huge maintenance burden.
>  
>  I expect all this testing/stubbing/mocking to require considerable
>  effort and time. I may be wrong, but I don't currently see as
>  reasonable to try to put some of it into upcoming 0.5.0. I would
>  rather make a release targeted specifically at enabling testing. Or
>  at least half of the release, I can imagine two people working on
>  enabling testing and two people working on ResultDB, or similarly.
>  Should it be the very next release (0.6.0)? I don't know, let's
>  discuss and plan that once we release 0.5.0. 
Depending on the direction we choose to go, I was thinking of the mock
instances as somewhat orthogonal to AutoQA. If we're talking about
modifying the AutoQA code for better testing support, that's different
though.

I was thinking slightly differently but coming to a similar conclusion.
I agree that this would be a non-trivial amount of work but was thinking
that it might not be done in time to make a difference for the 0.5.0
release. Even if it could be, I'm not sure it would be wise to distract
from getting 0.5.0 done.

Either way, it sounds like we're thinking along similar lines here.
We'll re-visit the issue once we get 0.5.0 out and working.

Tim