cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <>
Subject Re: Master broken
Date Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:50:49 GMT
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 07:44:41AM +0000, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers []
> > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 7:16 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Master broken
> > 
> > On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 05:27:11AM +0000, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
> > > Ah - misunderstood. Like Hugo said, a test that fails on presence of db
> > connection should solve this. But I hope ppl will turn mysql on (as an
> > additional step) to run the bvt. Or better yet, I can look into those db tests
> > and port them as marvin tests.
> > >
> > 
> > Perhaps I'm confused, but having a unit test that fails the build if MySQL is
> > running on the local machine seems like a really bad idea.
> > 
> > I think the problem to solve is just that we want to avoid unit tests that
> > require a DB.  As long as we all know this, and that we have build jobs that fail
> > on the CI side of things, isn't that enough?
> > 
> > Am I confused?
> No :-)  
> The idea is to avoid unit tests that rely on the DB. However this is rather difficult
to do in some cases. We have a lot of autoloading going on, so in some cases a simple fix
to components could suddenly result in having a component that requires a database connection.
If the developer in question has an active database, he/she will never notice until the tests
hit the master branch and Jenkins starts complaining.
> My idea was to solve this by adding a negative test (break if you have database) to give
people a reminder (by breaking their build) if they have an active database. That could help
developers remember to shut it down before compiling.

I'm against this.  It shouldn't be a build requirement to *not* have a
DB running.  That would be exceptionally complicated for people to deal
with all the time, just to avoid inappropriate unit tests.

View raw message