On 05/23/2014 10:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 14:31 +0530, Amita Sharma wrote:
On 05/23/2014 02:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 20:22 +0530, Amita Sharma wrote:
Thanks for working on this. I'm curious as to the context: is this
really a Fedora-level effort, or is it more 389-ds upstream-level? What
are the other test plans you are planning to work on? Thanks!
Hi Adam,
I have updated http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Test_Cases with
389 test cases section as you suggested.
Thanks for that! But I think the category name might need to be changed.
The name part has to match the name of the source package - that's how
Bodhi knows which test cases to show for which updates, it looks in the
wiki for a category called "Package_(source_package_name)_test_cases".
Thanks for the reply Adam
I accept your comment , it should be "Package_389-ds-base_test_cases"
It looks like there is a '389-ds' package, but it only contains a couple
of directories and some dependencies - that is, it's basically a
metapackage. It very rarely gets updated, so we don't want the test
cases associated with that package, because then people testing updated
389-ds bits won't see them.
It looks like the 'real' 389 source packages are:
389-ds-base
389-ds-console
389-console
389-admin
389-admin-console
389-adminutil
389-dsgw
There are many ::
===============
389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-33.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
389-ds-base-libs-1.2.11.15-32.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
-- These rpms are for the basic Directory Server Instance.
389-admin-1.1.34-1.el6.x86_64.rpm
389-admin-console-1.1.8-1.el6.noarch.rpm
389-admin-console-doc-1.1.8-1.el6.noarch.rpm
389-admin-debuginfo-1.1.34-1.el6.x86_64.rpm
389-adminutil-1.1.17-1.el6.x86_64.rpm
389-adminutil-debuginfo-1.1.17-1.el6.x86_64.rpm
389-adminutil-devel-1.1.17-1.el6.x86_64.rpm
--- These are for Admin Server.
389-console-1.1.7-1.el6.noarch.rpm
389-ds-console-1.2.7-1.el6.noarch.rpm
389-ds-console-doc-1.2.7-1.el6.noarch.rpm
--- These are for Directory Server Console
389-ds-base-debuginfo-1.2.11.15-32.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
389-ds-base-devel-1.2.11.15-33.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
--- These are devel and debuginfo rpms
I just looked at the *source* package names. That's the thing used for
this 'package-related test case' mechanism - the source package, not
binary packages.
I don't know enough about 389 to know which test cases should be
associated with which source package, but I guess you do. So create
"Package_(source_package_name)_test_cases" categories for each source
package for which you have relevant test cases, and put the right test
cases in the right categories :)
So here again As you said "REAL RPMS" are only few and I don't think we
should categories the test cases on the basis of rpms because one or
more rpms are dependency rpms, serving single purpose.
Rather, we can have 2 major categories
1. 389-ds-base (which will cover various features of DS like password
policy, SSL etc.)
2. 389-console (which will cover admin and console functionality)
I think the best way to think about it would be from the other end: the
updates end. Basically, the question to ask is "when we ship an update
for this package, what test cases do we think it would be useful for
people to run?"
Oh, and you don't need a clean "each test case is in exactly one
category" mapping, sorry, I should've mentioned that earlier. You can
certainly have test cases in multiple package categories. So if there's
a test case that would make sense to run both when 389-ds-base is
updated and when 389-admin is updated...put it in both categories.
Thanks!
Hi Adam,
Thanks for explaining the things so nicely, I hope I got it right and
updated the stuff accordingly.
Please check ::
1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Test_Cases - New Category 3
2. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_389-ds-base_test_cases
3. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_389_ds_base_setup_testcase
Thanks & Regards,
Ami
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
