[OpenAFS] buildbot and packages

Michael Meffie mmeffie@sinenomine.net
Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:14:38 -0400

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:12:42 -0500
Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:

> > > However, this requires having a much greater availability of release
> > > management and testing resources.
> > 
> > And perhaps an argument for automated tests that could prove out a release?
> > If you mean manual testing resources, given the scope of platform support and myriad branches for OpenAFS I doubt 'enough' will ever be enough :)  If we could bend those resources to creating and maintaining functional tests then that might be a better use of time.  Definitely a challenge though.
> All this talk about 'reliable code for our users' is total BS
> until 'make check' actually does some realisitic functionality tests.
> If you can't write an automated test for a feature, they I would
> request we consider disabling that feature.

I appreciate your zeal for automated functional testing, and there has been,
and continues to be improvement in the unit test code.  Everyone agrees,
functional unit testing it a good use of time, and helps improve the quality
and maintainability of the code.

Functional testing is mandated for changes where it makes sense, such as
changes to libraries, administrative commands, and so forth.  However, it is
important to keep in mind, OpenAFS is a complex, large, distributed
filesystem, supported on a large number, and ever changing number of platforms.
Much of the really interesting and complex interactions are not realistically
covered by a simple functional test of one one platform.

I'm not trying to suggest testing is not important, just keep in mind, there
are different types of testing, with different cost/benefit models.

Just my 2 cents

Michael Meffie <mmeffie@sinenomine.net>