Adding Tests section to php packaging guidelines

[Otto Urpelainen]

Hello php sig,

For some time already, I have had in mind to extend the php Packaging 
Guidelines with some suggestions about test suites. I am not a php 
expert, so this work is based on simply trying to codify the already 
established practices. Before submitting a pull request for the 
Guidelines, I would appreciate if you could spare some of your time to 
"pre-review" my work and give feedback [1].

I am mostly concerned about the autoloader testing section. It talks 
about the "generated autoloader", for the first time in the guidelines. 
Autoloader generation is explained in the wiki page PHP/PackagingTips 
[2]. The page argues against adding that information to the Guidelines, 
because the autoloader is not mandatory. However, the word "should" 
already carries the right meaning in the guidelines. Would it make sense 
to move that section to the Guidelines, appropriately marked with 
"should"? Some people (like me) only check the Guidelines and do not 
always find additional information hiding in the wiki.

[1]: 
https://pagure.io/fork/oturpe/packaging-committee/diff/master..php-test-guid...
[2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/PHP/PackagingTips

Regards,
Otto

[Remi Collet]

Hi,

Le 13/10/2021 à 22:17, Otto Urpelainen a écrit :
> Hello php sig,
>
> For some time already, I have had in mind to extend the php Packaging 
> Guidelines with some suggestions about test suites. I am not a php 
> expert, so this work is based on simply trying to codify the already 
> established practices. Before submitting a pull request for the 
> Guidelines, I would appreciate if you could spare some of your time to 
> "pre-review" my work and give feedback [1].
>
> I am mostly concerned about the autoloader testing section. It talks 
> about the "generated autoloader", for the first time in the guidelines. 
> Autoloader generation is explained in the wiki page PHP/PackagingTips 
> [2]. The page argues against adding that information to the Guidelines, 
> because the autoloader is not mandatory. However, the word "should" 
> already carries the right meaning in the guidelines. Would it make sense 
> to move that section to the Guidelines, appropriately marked with 
> "should"? Some people (like me) only check the Guidelines and do not 
> always find additional information hiding in the wiki.

Thanks for working on improving Guidelines

I think running test suite is already in the Packaging Guidelines
as a "should"

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites

I'm used to consider other things as "tips", which are not
really needed in the Guidelines, and easier to maintain in the SIG page

What seems really missing is a link in the Guidelines to the SIG page.

Notice, testing the generated autoloader make sense when there is no
test suite (as test suite should uses it, and thus tests it).

Remi
> Regards,
> Otto
> _______________________________________________
> php-devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]....
>
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Otto Urpelainen]

Remi Collet kirjoitti 14.10.2021 klo 11.25:
> Hi,
>
> Le 13/10/2021 à 22:17, Otto Urpelainen a écrit :
> > Hello php sig,
> >
> > For some time already, I have had in mind to extend the php Packaging 
> > Guidelines with some suggestions about test suites. I am not a php 
> > expert, so this work is based on simply trying to codify the already 
> > established practices. Before submitting a pull request for the 
> > Guidelines, I would appreciate if you could spare some of your time to 
> > "pre-review" my work and give feedback [1].
> >
> > I am mostly concerned about the autoloader testing section. It talks 
> > about the "generated autoloader", for the first time in the 
> > guidelines. Autoloader generation is explained in the wiki page 
> > PHP/PackagingTips [2]. The page argues against adding that information 
> > to the Guidelines, because the autoloader is not mandatory. However, 
> > the word "should" already carries the right meaning in the guidelines. 
> > Would it make sense to move that section to the Guidelines, 
> > appropriately marked with "should"? Some people (like me) only check 
> > the Guidelines and do not always find additional information hiding in 
> > the wiki.
>
> Thanks for working on improving Guidelines
>
> I think running test suite is already in the Packaging Guidelines
> as a "should"
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites
>
> I'm used to consider other things as "tips", which are not
> really needed in the Guidelines, and easier to maintain in the SIG page
>
> What seems really missing is a link in the Guidelines to the SIG page.

That is right, the SHOULD for running the tests is already in the top 
level guidelines. I was comparing the PHP guidelines to guidelines for 
some other languages, where the requirement is repeated, with specific 
instructions. The Python guidelines even go as far as declaring certain 
tests as MUST.

That said, the divide between guidelines and tips certainly makes sense, 
and also I have no desire to effect any change in how the SIG organizes 
the material.

I will submit a pull request to add a link from the guidelines to PHP 
Packaging Tips. What is your view on the guidelines section "Additional 
Hints for Packagers", should that be moved to tips as well?

The section "Macros and scriptlets" also uses a lot of "recommended" and 
very little "must", so it sounds like a lot material there is actually 
tips not guidelines. But I do not understand the topics there very well, 
I cannot really say.

I will also move my writeup on makesrc.sh to the tips page. What is the 
preferred way of working with the wiki? Do I just publish things, then 
any feedback is applied on the live document, or should I make a draft 
page and ask for feedback on that?
> Notice, testing the generated autoloader make sense when there is no
> test suite (as test suite should uses it, and thus tests it).

Thank you for clarifying this. The tips page already explains that, 
however I was misled by packages doing both. For example, 
php-uri-interfaces [1]. Package review accepted by me, ahem!

I'll add the discussion about the special case of no upstream test suite 
to the tips the. And send a pull request to php-uri-interfaces to clear 
that one up.

Otto

[1]: 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-league-uri-interfaces/blob/rawhide/f/...