Re: Thoughts about Travis-CI integration

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:52:59 +0200
Alexander Todorov <atodorov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi folks,
> this message sparked an interest:
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/python-bugzilla/2013-December/000200.html
> 
> In addition to that I've inspected around 30 packages which seem to
> be missing an upstream test suite (a few have one but it is not
> automatically executed in %check section in the spec file).
> 
> I'm pretty sure many more packages are like this, I just didn't have
> the time to investigate all several thousands of them.
> 
> My idea is simple - starting after the holidays to call for help in
> writing test suites (or more test cases) for packages. This can be
> coupled with settings to execute them in Travis CI or another CI
> system of choice.

Sounds interesting. We couldn't run travis in %check... so that would
be something run async somewhere? 

I think adding %checks would be longer term more handy, but would also
be more work (you would involve upstreams of projects and work with
them to create checks,etc)
 
> My questions are:
> 
> * What is the general feeling of using Travis CI in Fedora? It is
> well established in Ruby and Python circles but I know we like to
> keep dependency on external services to minumum.

I guess that somewhat depends on whats done with the information. Would
a failure there block updating a Fedora package? Or would it simply be
informational? 

Would we then contribute the travis info to upstream to use, or this
is tied to the Fedora package version?
 
> Does Fedora have its own CI infrastructure coupled with Koji ?

No.
 
> Maybe deploy our own instance or contribute to Travis with a pool of
> systems sponsored by Fedora?

In order for us to deploy it, it would need to be packaged up (looks
like it's a lot of moving parts) and you would need to get enough
folks who know ruby/jruby/etc to commit to maintain it long term. 
 
> What to do with packages whose test suite is not suitable to be
> executed during build (e.g. due to requirements or limitations on the
> build servers) ?

Note also that builds allow no network, so you can't depend on remote
resources. There's various ways to test things even so, depending on
what you are testing. 
 
> What's your take ?

I think more testing at this level is great, but might be better to
look at working with upstreams to add tests that could run from
%check... 
 
> ( Adding Tim Flink to CC to answer from the infrastructure side. )
> 
> 
> * Are there any volunteers to join me in planning and coordinating
> this project? We need to somehow prioritize which packages need
> inspection and working on, count the available test cases, report
> bugs if missing, produce patches, etc. It will be a long run one and
> needs lots of work just because the great number of packages.
> 
> 
> * Who else should I be talking to ?

If you want to involve fedora infrastructure, the infrastructure list
might be good... 

kevin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

-- 
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux