trafficserver-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Kenny <jke...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Location for test plugins
Date Fri, 02 Jun 2017 20:19:52 GMT
I am fine with tests/plugins.
We just need to make sure the code is documented to say what it tests. Some cases will be
one-off plugins while other will be reusable
Jason

On Friday, June 2, 2017, 3:17:52 PM CDT, Steven R. Feltner <sfeltner@godaddy.com> wrote:

+1 for tests/plugins.  It should cut down on the confusion of someone trying to use it as
a ‘real’ plugin versus putting it in the plugins/* directory structure.

On 6/2/17, 2:32 PM, "Leif Hedstrom" <zwoop@apache.org> wrote:

    +1 for tests/plugins as well.
    
    > On Jun 2, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Bryan Call <bcall@apache.org> wrote:
    > 
    > +1 for tests/plugins
    > 
    > -Bryan
    > 
    > 
    >> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Alan Carroll <solidwallofcode@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
wrote:
    >> 
    >> PR 2042 has a special plugin in it which is used only for performing tests.
This is just the first of something that is going to occur repeatedly in the future. These
plugins are not written to be general purpose but will be effectively custom built specifically
for the test. We should decide now how we want that structured. Some options are
    >> * Put them in example.* Put them in tests/plugins* Put them in the directory
containing the test.
    >> My personal preference is the second. I think these plugins are unlikely to
be good example plugins and they certainly aren't production ready. On the other hand, having
a single place to look for test plugins is in my view useful and better than scattering them
in different sub directories under tests.
    > 
    
    


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message