httpd-test-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <>
Subject Re: Apache::Test oustanding issues
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:07:18 GMT
Randy Kobes wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, David Wheeler wrote:
>>On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 06:33  PM, Randy Kobes wrote:
>>>What about just skipping the tests if root is running the
>>>tests, and printing out an explanatory message why the tests
>>>are skipped?
>>I don't think you can necessarily do this, because not all test
>>need to have access to t/. My test suite for
>>MasonX::ApacheHandler::WithCallbacks, for example, doesn't need
>>to have the Apache user access those files. They're loaded up
>>by the user that starts apache (root), and then the process
>>forks off to nobody-owned children that never access the files.
>>So my tests work fine even under root.
> That's a good point ... As you say below, it'd be better for
> the test writer to decide on an individual basis which tests
> should be skipped if run as root.

this means 99.9% tests in mod_perl 2.0. But we really want to have users run 
the tests. Otherwise what's the point of having a test suite. If things are 
potentially wrong on a user's system we want him to know about it as early as 
possible and not by trial and error with their own code.

I'd suggest to first try to find a real solution so the tests could be run 
under root as well. copying -r ./t to /tmp seems to me like a possible 
solution, even though an ugly one.

>>And since many, _many_ users simply install modules via
>>as root, you'd be eliminating a huge group of people who can
>>run tests.
> That's true, although that practice is discouraged ... I think
> this issue has come up in the context of other CPAN modules,
> where some do skip tests if run as root, for similar reasons -
> some tests aren't designed for being run as root, and in
> principle may give false positive (or negative) results if run as
> such.

the practice was/is discouraged where the problem wasn't dealt with. I'd love 
to see it solved and make it transparent for the user.

>>I think a better idea is to introduce a test function like
>>"have_lwp", maybe called "has_access_to_t", that can be used by
>>the module developer to skip the relevant tests, if necessary.

I think we can do it better.

Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker     mod_perl Guide --->

View raw message