From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29524 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2007 10:03:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 29517 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2007 10:03:03 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wildebeest.demon.nl (HELO gnu.wildebeest.org) (83.160.170.119) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:02:57 +0000 Received: from dijkstra.wildebeest.org ([192.168.1.29]) by gnu.wildebeest.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IFobd-0003WY-Bz; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:05:33 +0200 Subject: Re: Testing frysk.testbed.Funit* From: Mark Wielaard To: Andrew Cagney Cc: frysk@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <46AE081A.8070503@redhat.com> References: <46AE081A.8070503@redhat.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-kOo2LfCMuKOBMi+tKKUC" Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:03:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1185876171.3653.64.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6) X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on sourceware.org X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q3/txt/msg00234.txt.bz2 --=-kOo2LfCMuKOBMi+tKKUC Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 955 Hi Andrew, On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 11:47 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > I'm looking at ways to more directly test the frysk.testbed.Funit*=20 > classes (e.g., FunitExec, DetachedAckProcess) that wrap=20 > PKGLIBDIR/funit-* utilities, but am finding that the most effective=20 > route is to use frysk.proc's framework - duplicating the existing=20 > frysk.proc tests exercising frysk.proc functionality that is effectively= =20 > testing that code. >=20 > I could duplicate the tests but it seems redundant. Any thoughts on a=20 > strategy? I might be missing the exact cases you want to test. But can't you just audit the current frysk.proc tests to see if they cover all relevant cases already and if not add one or two tests to the existing proc tests so all cases are covered? That way you will also extend the real proc tests to handle more cases catching two birds with one stone (if that isn't a terribly political incorrect saying). Cheers, Mark --=-kOo2LfCMuKOBMi+tKKUC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-length: 189 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGrwjBxVhZCJWr9QwRAjS5AKCorDmE5tLtd/QJLCuJjbi5rIDGAwCgpUgP aT6S5BKoDFUGQlPsGW/WkWI= =gGW8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-kOo2LfCMuKOBMi+tKKUC--