Recurring fails on windows tests and the recent CentOS failure

[Nate Finch]

Or maybe we should just code teardown so that if setup isn't  called, we
don't do teardown either.  Lots of times I see people say "just include
basesuite for X method" and since I don't need whatever its setup does, I
don't call it in my setup  I don't think that's a programmer error, per se.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 7:39 AM roger peppe <rogpeppe at gmail.com> wrote:

> It shouldn't be hard to write some code (using go/types) that
> automatically checks
> for these invariants.
>
>
> On 15 July 2015 at 07:05, John Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Bogdan Teleaga
> > <bteleaga at cloudbasesolutions.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello everybody,
> >>
> >> Lately I've been noticing a couple of failures regarding a new testing
> >> feature introduced on windows.
> >>
> >> Without going into implementation details too deep the main idea is that
> >> whenever a new suite is created
> >> that inherits from a base suite and a SetUpX function is defined, it
> needs
> >> to call the SetUpX function of the
> >> base suite. The main reason would be that if that's not done we will not
> >> do set up for any test, but we will do
> >> a tear down. To some extent it might be worth it to add some annotations
> >> to the failure message, since it might
> >> come up more often and it is not immideately obvious why.
> >
> >
> > That's certainly an expectation of any sort of function that a type
> > overloads from an embedded type. If people are overriding SetUp and not
> > calling the embedded SetUp that's going to cause all sorts of bugs (we do
> > test suite isolation, logging changes, HOME directory setup in base
> types).
> > I'm actually surprised that things worked if people are doing so. I guess
> > some things like Isolation are things you don't notice until late,
> because
> > you end up with files littered where they shouldn't be.
> >
> > John
> > =:->
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> The bugs caused by this so far are:
> >> - https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1474382
> >> - https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1471941
> >>
> >> Another issue is that a recent bugfix stopped CentOS completely from
> >> working.
> >> The series could not be detected anymore because the map was changed
> *and*
> >> the test that
> >> was using actual data from /etc/os-release was modified to mirror this
> >> change. Until we get the CI
> >> for CentOS up and running, but even as a general thing for that matter,
> >> please consider the old
> >> content of the tests and their intention before modyfing them to fit the
> >> changes in the code.
> >>
> >> For more details on the CentOS bug:
> >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1470150
> >>
> >> And that would be all for now, I'll let you get back to the other
> hundred
> >> emails.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Bogdan
> >>
> >> --
> >> Juju-dev mailing list
> >> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Juju-dev mailing list
> > Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20150715/6fc9a7ee/attachment.html>