Fwd: autopkgtest: Generic Test Harness / Network Client Service testing
christian at iwakd.de
Thu Jul 30 06:10:32 UTC 2015
Thanks for your reply!
On 07/30/2015 01:41 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Christian Seiler writes ("Fwd: autopkgtest: Generic Test Harness / Network Client Service testing"):
>> Personally, I think having an embedded copy of the whole thing is
>> probably a bad idea in the long run - especially if I start improving
>> it for the convenience of the package I'm currently working on,
>> effectively creating divergent versions of the same piece of software.
> Yes, absolutely!
>> I think it would make sense to package that - and autopkgtest seems to
>> be the best place for that (maybe an additional binary package?). What
>> do you think?
> Yes, probably.
I will read your answer as "we'll happily take a patch". ;-)
So unless I hear somebody else object, I'll prepare a patch that adds
an improved version of this testlib.py to autopkgtest. Would you rather
have that python module as part of the autopkgtest binary package
directly, or would you prefer to have autopkgtest build a separate
binary package? If so, what should it be called?
>> Can one tell autopkgtest to provision two VMs? One which is configured
>> to provide some generic services - and then a second VM that contains
>> the package itself (both can see each other and IP addresses of the own
>> and other VMs are available for scripts) in order to test whether it
>> works properly against the service that's set up.
> There is not currently such a facility.
>> If that's not possible, do you think this idea has some merit?
> I think this is an interesting idea but it would require substantial
> design work to extend the test protocol to support this functionality.
I'm going to be at Debconf, so maybe we could find some time to hash
this out there.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the autopkgtest-devel