Re: bunsen (re)design discussion #0: list of topics, review of terminology

[Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>]

On 3/7/22 11:03, Serhei Makarov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022, at 1:59 PM, Serhei Makarov wrote:
>> ...
> (once more, with proper word-wrapping for plaintext mailers; apologies)
> 
> I'm in the process of re-evaluating and re-working some core aspects
> of the Bunsen code, with input from Frank Ch. Eigler. This will result
> in several public emails like this one as I sort through various
> concerns.

This is excellent, and while the timing might be uncomfortably "late"
for my tastes, I am very glad to see this formalization happening. I
am hoping to put Bunsen into production use later this year.

> Initial list of topics I need to cover is below. Incidentally, it
> approximately matches the sequence in which Bunsen concepts would need
> to be introduced in a Bunsen man page or tutorial.
> 
> (0) Review of Terminology
> (1) Testrun Representation
>    - version identifiers (source_commit, package_nvr) & sorting
>    - configuration & whether to allow 'arbitrary' metadata
> (2) Repository Layout
>    - splitting testruns across branches, fche's suggestion
>    - speculation: should we adopt SQLite? or borrow ideas from Django ORM?
> (3) Analysis Pipeline
>    - splitting querying from analysis from formatting
>    - Index class represents the result of a query
>    - Table class represents data for formatting (as plaintext, HTML, etc.)
>    - configuration file format: borrowing from the 'Makefile' metaphor
>    to describe items of data and reports Bunsen produces, and how to
>    refresh each item when its dependencies change

Missing:

Test suite. We've touched on this before, and I just want to reiterate:
THIS IS VITAL to prevent someone (realistically *me*) from breaking
your work. IIUC SystemTap and GDB are the only two projects currently
using (or attempting to use) Bunsen. I'd like to (minimally) see some
end-to-end test suite available.

Last year my main goal was to improve GDB's DejaGNU parser so that it could
output identical results to DejaGNU's summary. [This is the +summarize script.]
That was the first testing feature that I wanted. The next is to verify
log output/cursor positions. This is another fundamental feature of the
service I want to implement, comparing test .log output between arbitrary
testruns.

I have a list of wish-list items/cleanups that I'd like to see addressed, but
I'll save those for a more appropriate time.

> (0) Review of Terminology

Nice! I'm good with this.

Keithp