harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stepan Mishura" <stepan.mish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [buildtest] Proposal for Build Test Infrastructure Improvement
Date Tue, 17 Apr 2007 05:46:16 GMT
Hi Alexander,

I've reviewed almost all the code. And I have some comments and questions:

1) Is it possible to add modules 'drlvm-test' and 'classlib-drlvm'
that we have in the current infra? I'll help the difference between
approaches.

For example, the following difference for classlib confuses me a
little bit: the current infra launches classlib by simply calling
classlib's build with corresponding target:
<ant target="fetch-depends rebuild" ....
</ant>

But the proposed infra does the next: calls adaptor.xml with 'run'
target (I'm OK with it). But the classlib's adaptor not just simply
calls classlib's build. It detects OS, set corresponding properties,
calls classlib's target 'fetch-depends' with <ant> and then calls
classlib's target 'rebuild' via <exec> task. So we have, for example
for Windows:
        <ant target="fetch-depends" dir="${trunk.dir}"
             inheritAll="false">
        </ant>
        <exec executable="cmd" dir="${trunk.dir}" failonerror="true">
            <arg line="/c ${ant.home}/bin/ant.bat"/>
            <arg line="rebuild"/>
        </exec>

What the reason for calling classlib's build in this way? Why we have
to run 'ant.bat' (or 'ant.sh' for Linux) via <exec>?

2) The build files have cyclic import dependencies:
framework.xml => cc-project.xml => framework.xml

It complicates the build logic. Is it possible to avoid this?

3) In exec-adaptor.xml antconrib's wrapper 'trycatch' and 'runtarget'
task are used for calling adaptor's(i.e. suite's) target.

<trycatch property="execution.exception">
    <try>
        <runtarget target="@{target}"/>
    </try>
    <catch>
Echo error message
    </catch>
</trycatch>

Again, why it is not possible use <ant> task? And this leads to the
next question.

4) Using antcontrib. The proposed implementation uses it in many
places. But from my POV it is possible to use ANT tasks/targets/macros
instead. For example, I've picked up the first case from
'framework.xml' that patches ANT:
<target name="patch-ant" depends="make-dirs, define-tasks">
    <if>
        <not><available file="${temp.files.dir}/SubAnt.java"/></not>
    <then>
        <get src="http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15681"
             dest="${temp.files.dir}/SubAnt.java"
             usetimestamp="true"
             verbose="true"
        />
    </then>
    </if>
...
</ target >

That IMHO can be easy converted to 'pure' ANT by creating target that
only runs if there is no SubAnt.java file and adding the target to
"patch-ant" decencies.

Actually, I don't want to start flame war - which approach is better.
I'm just trying to understand is it possible to avoid using antcontibs
task? IOW, is there any issue that can not be solved by using ANT
only?

5) Patching ANT - is there any workaround?

6) And minor question: is there any strong reason for naming build
scripts 'adaptor.xml' not 'build.xml'?

Thanks,
Stepan.

On 3/27/07, Alexander Kleymenov <kleymenov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> With this letter I'd like to announce the new approach for BT Framework
> Implementation. It could be found as an attachment to JIRA #3501 [1].
>
> Proposed BT Infra Implementation improves and structures current one and brings
> the following features allowing using the framework as a standard means for
> Harmony Testing works:
>
>  - Simplicity and convenience of use allows to perform all of the testing
>    works (by testers and developers) by unified single way and with using
>    of the same means.
>
>  - Clear and Documented Architecture, Workspace Structure, Clear separation
>    of Functional Components of the Framework, Standard Implementation Means
>    allows to easy start, use, improve, and maintain the framework.
>
>  - Highly configurable Test Run:
>
>    Simple means for Test Suite selections - use property value to select
>    required Test Suites. Only selected suites will be checked out (or
>    downloaded) and executed.
>
>    Simple and easy manageable means for settings dependencies between Test
>    Suites. It excludes the necessity of combo-test-suites creation (such as
>    classlib-drlvm now)
>
>    Simple and natural means for describing of required parameters for selected
>    Test Suites (as path to tested JVM, Classlib, compiler checks, and so on).
>    It is done in one specified place and there is no need to drill into Test
>    Suites for setting up such a parameters. Moreover, new BT Framework performs
>    the correctness analysis of the provided values for parameters and reports
>    an error just before Test Suite execution, not after an hour of the work.
>    Additional important feature is an ability to provide default values for
>    required parameters on the base of execution results of another Test Suite.
>    So, for example, drlvm Test Suite (which checks that DRLVM can be built)
>    uses the default value for 'classlib.trunk' parameter (specifying
> the path to
>    classlib workspace) the value provided by classlib Test Suite. If classlib
>    Test Suite was chosen for execution, 'classlib.trunk' parameter of drlvm
>    test suite will be resolved. If classlib was not chosen, user will be
>    asked to provide the value for this parameter. Such a feature allows to
>    reduce the user's job on parameters setting.
>
>    Such a simplicity of Test Run configuration (selection of the suites and
>    parameters tuning) allows to easy set up the BT Framework for specific
>    needs. So for Harmony developers it is possible to chose their own sets of
>    checks of the workspace under development and to run this checks on demand
>    in single execution mode. For Harmony testers it is possible to use
>    sophisticated CruiseControl configurations for continuous test runs with
>    notification publishing.
>
>  - Easy and Documented way to integrate new Test Suites:
>
>    There is no longer need to implement CruiseControl configurations for
>    each of new Test Suites being integrated into framework. Cruise Control
>    system is used as a framework extension allowing continuous test runs, not
>    as a development means. It simplifies the process and reduces the time
>    of new Test Suite integration.
>
>  - Implemented Approach to share External Library Dependencies
> between different
>    Test Suites allows to perform external dependencies fetching in one place by
>    one means and to save time and internet traffic.
>
>  - To run custom configuration there is no need to download
>    all of the Test Suites integrated into BT.
>
>  - The Architecture of the Framework is open for extending by other functional
>    parts and 3rd party tools (such as CruiseControl etc)
>
> The main idea of the new Framework is to use Ant's scripts called 'adaptors' as
> a glue layer between Test Suites and the BT Framework executing them. All of the
> Parameters of the suites (such as required values, external libraries, shared
> values to be used by other suites, optional parameters for low-level tuning)
> are described in 'parameters.xml' file placed near corresponding 'adaptor.xml'.
> That's all.
>
> Please, look at the archive. There is a README.txt and SPEC.txt files describing
> and documenting the new Infrastructure. Also there are two integrated Test
> Suites - classlib and drlvm which check that classlib and drlvm can be built.
> Please look at them under adapters directory to catch the main idea of the
> Framework.
>
> Of course there are many points for improvements, but the main idea and
> functionality has already been implemented. Sorry for such a bulk, but I could
> not provide the framework by 'logical parts' because they together forms a
> whole. Now, when all of them in one place it is possible to improve or
> reimplement them (I heard about the existing approach for external libraries
> sharing, but did not look at it.  Probably it is better then proposed in my BT
> Infra implementation. In this case it is possible to replace the implementation
> of this functional part of the Framework).
>
> If you have any questions regarding the implementation please,
> provide them into this mail-thread.
>
> Thank you,
> Alexander
>
> [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3501
>


-- 
Stepan Mishura
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division

Mime
View raw message