possible approach for "test tags"

[Andrew Wilkins]

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Eric Snow <eric.snow at canonical.com> wrote:

> We've had discussions here a couple of times (since I joined the team)
> about classifying tests in our suite so they could be run more
> flexibly.  We've also already added explicit handling for a specific
> kind of test along those same lines: featuretests.  Additionally you
> can think of the CI tests as another test classification.  So we're
> already taking the approach in a limited fashion.
>
> I'd like to see something more generic that we could use in the juju
> test suite.  I've put up a proof of concept patch that demonstrates
> what I think would fit the bill:
>
>   http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/1647/
>
> If the approach seems reasonable then we could start using it for new
> tests and as appropriate when touching existing code.
>

Main thing that concerns me is that it's all opt-in. I guess it doesn't
matter
too much, as long as CI continues to run all the tests. There's nothing
stopping
people from skipping running the tests and proposing junk today.

A couple of things I'd like to see added to the proposal:
 - the ability to have negated tags, e.g. -tags=!long or -tags=^long or
whatever.
 - a meta "all" tag, or command line flag to set all the tags (e.g. for CI)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20150514/d0d6c352/attachment.html>