yellow team mailing list archive

[Gary Poster <gary.poster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Robert.  I asked Brad to go ahead and land his fix for bug 1004625,
because I wanted to get the associated tests back in the parallel
testing bandwagon while we hashed out what to do next.  Brad was
reinstating previous behavior, which was and is (at least for now)
desirable, using a small patch, so I approved it.

This email is to start the process of hashing out next steps.

You pointed out two bugs: 682772 and 682771.  These center around the
fact that you don't want LP to generate duplicate test ids.

Our thoughts are these, if I understand correctly.  I'm counting on
other Yellow Squad folks clarifying my message if I go astray or leave
something out.

- The Python test runner and test tools have no problem with duplicate
test names.  We've encountered this usage pattern on other projects as
well.  We'd argue that a test tool that wants to fit in naturally within
the Python testing world would be more convenient if it supported this
existing pattern, of which Launchpad is but one example.

- testr is the only component in our stack that has trouble with
duplicate test names that we can see.  Even so, it almost does just fine
with them.  As long as a testrunner expands a single test name to all
associated tests, as ours did and now does again, the tests are run just
fine, all consecutively on a single worker.  testr probably does not
record the test time optimally (I'd guess it should aggregate?), and it
does need a bit of work on test counting, but other than that seems to
be fine, at least for roughshod usage.  I suspect that a bit of polish
on those two items and a bit of warning documentation would make this a
non-issue for testr users.

In sum, we are not confident that those two bugs are in fact the right
way to go.  We think testr should accommodate the test world, instead.

Even if you disagree with us, we also don't think that addressing this
one way or another is critical to the project--but as both the client
and the TA, I suspect you might be able to have something to say about
that if you wish. :-)

Thanks

Gary