7:45 a.m.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr>
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34:56PM +0200, Frederic Lepied wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stef Walter <stefw(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> Shouldn't we send an email to fedora-devel to have more feedback?
We announced the present mailing list on devel-announce which is
automatically
CC'd to devel itself. So folks interested on CI know that this is the
place to
be.
Yes I know that but we didn't really try to broader the discussion to
announce the vote because that's not a CI only discussion: packagers and QA
should be involved too.
I think we all recognized the Ansible proposal has some limitations, but
looking
at the people who reviewed, the majority has a preference for it.
It was a little bit rushed as nobody except Stef and you gave feedback on
the new proposition.
> In fact we already see some of these combinations in the
examples.
For
> example GLib2 or Cockpit package their own tests in RPMs. These are
then
> executed by the tests laid out as Ansible tests.
>
> I agree with this except that we cannot discover which packages are
> involved for a particular test using the ansible approach. The only
> package that will trigger the test will be the package that is being
built
> while with the other 2 approaches you can have a finer granularity in
the
> other packages needed for a particular test  (with the control
approach)
> or for the all the tests (with the packaging approach).
Having reviewed the Control approach and having asked questions¹ on the
wiki
page, I must say that the control approach seems very close to me to the
ansible
one, with one big pro: re-using existing tests from other distros and one
big
con: entirely new tool in the Fedora ecosystem at large.
The other level of granularity (allowing to specify if it requires root,
needs a
dedicated box) don't really matter since afaiu the idea is to invoke the
tests
as root anyway (up to the tests to change to another user if they want to)
in a
different VM every time.
Another thing I am missing with control is how would we test different
artifact?
(an RPM, a OCI container, a qcow image, an iso, an Atomic Host image).
There is no such support to my knowledge but I can see some ways to
implement it. 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.
Fred