FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-11-2008, 05:54 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:49:44 +0200
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I thought tests were already supposed to pass whatever the EAPI is and
> devs were supposed to run them...

Supposedly. But in practice this isn't true, because far too many
developers just don't care.

The whole mess started because src_test was introduced late on, but
before EAPIs, so there was no incremental way of making tests usable.
Enforcing src_test in a "you must explicitly say so if your package's
test suites are expected to fail" way on an EAPI bump is a clean way of
recovering from this.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-11-2008, 05:57 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:11:23 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:54:49PM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > > At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3
> > > package managers have implemented.
> >
> > I'm not sure that's a good idea, only two have implemented EAPI 1
> > so far.
>
> 3 have. If you're aware of a pkgcore issue, then kindly file a bug
> rather then going for mocking on -dev.

Had you bothered to write even trivial test suites for EAPI 1, you'd've
found at least one major bug straight away. Do everyone a favour and
write yourself a load of unit tests for every bit of changed
functionality in EAPI 1.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-11-2008, 05:58 AM
Luca Barbato
 
Default EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

Oh, so Gentoo has decided that basic QA is another 'poor programming
practice' now?


Having a good testsuite is part of the QA, having it not failing is part
of the QA, running it for supposedly tested code (thus having those test
passed already) every time isn't.


People marking stuff ~ or stable should run the testsuite as a way to
make sure the package is sound. Users shouldn't take this pain.


lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-11-2008, 06:01 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:53:21 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > A whole bunch of science packages have upstreams that say "If you're
> > building from source, run 'make check' and if it fails don't carry
> > on".
>
> Their rationale behind that is that their code is severely broken,
> using experimental features from their language of choice or, simply,
> that they are paranoid and couldn't think better ways to annoy people?

Their rationale being that compilers and users screw up, and that
detecting a failure before deployment is important for people who care
about what programs do.

Simple example... Take people who use Roy's broken patches from bug
192403. If you build a program that uses C++ exception handling using
such a compiler, it'll compile just fine and then do very weird things
at runtime. Test suites catch this, and spare a lot of everyone's time.

> > For that matter, I'm strongly inclined to say that for Paludis
> > too...
>
> Getting the build time from 30minutes to an hour or more?

And saving your ass when you're using a broken compiler that generates
broken code that would force you to reinstall a working compiler by
hand when the package manager gets h0rked.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-11-2008, 06:01 AM
Luca Barbato
 
Default EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:49:44 +0200
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

I thought tests were already supposed to pass whatever the EAPI is and
devs were supposed to run them...


Supposedly. But in practice this isn't true, because far too many
developers just don't care.


and having it forced in the eapi won't change this.


Enforcing src_test in a "you must explicitly say so if your package's
test suites are expected to fail" way on an EAPI bump is a clean way of
recovering from this.


You are assuming that every package has a test (false), nobody will have
src_test dummified.


lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-11-2008, 06:02 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:58:44 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Oh, so Gentoo has decided that basic QA is another 'poor programming
> > practice' now?
>
> Having a good testsuite is part of the QA, having it not failing is
> part of the QA, running it for supposedly tested code (thus having
> those test passed already) every time isn't.

You assume that users have working, properly configured compilers. It's
fairly well established that a lot of them don't, particularly on
Gentoo.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-11-2008, 06:02 AM
Luca Barbato
 
Default EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:11:23 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:54:49PM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
wrote:

At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3
package managers have implemented.

I'm not sure that's a good idea, only two have implemented EAPI 1
so far.
3 have. If you're aware of a pkgcore issue, then kindly file a bug
rather then going for mocking on -dev.


Had you bothered to write even trivial test suites for EAPI 1, you'd've
found at least one major bug straight away.


http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgcore/newticket

lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-11-2008, 06:05 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:01:30 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:49:44 +0200
> > Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> I thought tests were already supposed to pass whatever the EAPI is
> >> and devs were supposed to run them...
> >
> > Supposedly. But in practice this isn't true, because far too many
> > developers just don't care.
>
> and having it forced in the eapi won't change this.

Sure it will. They won't be able to install their package without
either passing src_test or restricting it.

Developers *do* try to install things before committing, right?

> > Enforcing src_test in a "you must explicitly say so if your
> > package's test suites are expected to fail" way on an EAPI bump is
> > a clean way of recovering from this.
>
> You are assuming that every package has a test (false), nobody will
> have src_test dummified.

Not at all. If upstream has no test suite, or developers choose to
RESTRICT off test, it just means there's less QA being done for that
package.

But more importantly, it still means that people *know* that a failing
src_test is to be investigated. Currently they instead have to guess
whether it's a lazy developer issue or a genuine bug being shown.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-11-2008, 06:11 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:02:48 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Had you bothered to write even trivial test suites for EAPI 1,
> > you'd've found at least one major bug straight away.
>
> http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgcore/newticket

http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgcore/ticket/197

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-11-2008, 06:50 AM
Luca Barbato
 
Default EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:53:21 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

A whole bunch of science packages have upstreams that say "If you're
building from source, run 'make check' and if it fails don't carry
on".

Their rationale behind that is that their code is severely broken,
using experimental features from their language of choice or, simply,
that they are paranoid and couldn't think better ways to annoy people?


Their rationale being that compilers and users screw up, and that
detecting a failure before deployment is important for people who care
about what programs do.

Simple example... Take people who use Roy's broken patches from bug
192403. If you build a program that uses C++ exception handling using
such a compiler, it'll compile just fine and then do very weird things
at runtime. Test suites catch this, and spare a lot of everyone's time.


You are supposed to test proposed patches for opened bugs before
deploying them in any way.


Your "example", that btw is a quite low try to smear Roy, proves nothing.


And saving your ass when you're using a broken compiler that generates
broken code that would force you to reinstall a working compiler by
hand when the package manager gets h0rked.


You (upstream) are supposed to test and early users are supposed to
check their bleeding edge stuff is working if they care enough.
People using released programs that are in stable shouldn't have to do
that. If your code doesn't survive a gcc release usually it's the code
being wrong most of the times.


lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:54 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org