On 19.04.2017 15:05, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 02:45:44PM +0200, Frederic Lepied wrote:
> There is no such support to my knowledge but I can see some ways to
> implement it.
That is one con for the control proposal as it means that it'll need work before
people can use it and I have absolutely no idea how much work is involved in
this.
I now realized that this was something discussed early on that never made it to
the requirement list: rely on existing tooling as much as possible.
Any idea how much work it would be? And would upstream take such patches?
> Regarding the Ansible proposition, I don't see either how
> you'll declare that you are going to test a different artifact than an
> rpm.
Stef added this part in the diff he linked to earlier. The idea is to have
multiple playbooks, one per artifact tested. Potentially re-using shared
roles/playbooks for the common parts.
Does that sound reasonable?
There's a working example of this linked in my previous email. I'm
playing with the implementation and examples a bit more, but the
interface for handling multiple artifacts remains as documented:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InvokingTestsAnsible
Stef