[LTP] LTP - Include upstart whitebox / blackbox testing API's?

[Garrett Cooper]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Subrata Modak
<subrata at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 14:05 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 14:26 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Subrata Modak
>> > <subrata at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > > Garrett,
>> > >
>> > > Is there any headway with upstart developers regarding this initiative.
>> > > I dug out this mail from my mailbox to find this. Let me know if we can
>> > > resume this discussion once again.
>> > >
>> > > Regards--
>> > > Subrata
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 19:06 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
>> > >> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 05:26 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> > >> > Hello LTP gurus (and upstart gurus),
>> > >> >       As I mentioned before on the upstart-devel list, one of the
>> > >> > goals of the groups that I'm working with is to bring upstart -- the
>> > >> > init replacement -- to Cisco's Linux based platform for process
>> > >> > monitoring and management. As part of that we (my teammates and I)
>> > >> > were thinking of including whitebox and blackbox tests with LTP (Linux
>> > >> > test project) to try and unify testing of critical Linux components,
>> > >> > and also provide deterministic output also with greater visibility in
>> > >> > the testing community.
>> > >> >       LTP has a number of whitebox and blackbox tests in place [3],
>> > >> > most of the whitebox tests being C API's and the blackbox tests being
>> > >> > shell invocations of Unix commands, as well as a well-defined set of
>> > >> > test reporting API's and functions already in place.
>> > >>
>> > >> Ah!. That reminds me of the testcases for commands in LTP:
>> > >>
>> > >> http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/commands/
>> > >>
>> > >> I have been merging lots of patches and we were totally engaged with our
>> > >> white box test cases, that we completely forgot about those black box
>> > >> test cases, which are of immense help for:
>> > >>
>> > >> 1) Increasing code coverage for the kernel,
>> > >> 2) Testing the actual/mostly-used interfaces to the Linux OS.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks Garrett for reminding this valuable testcases piece. And the
>> > >> important point here to make is:
>> > >>
>> > >> Writing white box test cases requires fair knowledge of Kernel
>> > >> Internals, whereas the Blackbox test cases just requires user knowledge
>> > >> of the OS. With guidance from the Man Pages information, a huge
>> > >> community of administrators and normal users can write these black box
>> > >> tests. And they are a huge group of people to count. I need to look into
>> > >> this seriously from now.
>> > >>
>> > >> >       So, my question is two-fold:
>> > >> >       1. Would the upstart project be willing to work with LTP (via my
>> > >> > team as a proxy in the beginning) to enter some unit test code and
>> > >> > other test cases into LTP's test framework / overall testsuite, and
>> > >> > improve acceptance in the Linux testing community?
>> > >>
>> > >> I would be providing you the support with testing on the architectures i
>> > >> have at my disposal and speedy patch merge to LTP. We definitely need to
>> > >> do something to increase the code coverage.
>> > >>
>> > >> >       2. Would either group be willing to work with my team to help
>> > >> > maintain these testcases and develop new ones?
>> > >>
>> > >> Of course, i will.
>> > >>
>> > >> > Thanks,
>> > >> > -Garrett
>> > >> >
>> > >> > PS. Sorry for the cross-posting ; I try not to do this, but
>> > >> > considering that both groups can benefit from the discussion I wanted
>> > >> > to involve both.
>> > >>
>> > >> Nothing to worry about. When it comes to making Linux better, we need
>> > >> collaboration on various fronts. The livest example being the work done
>> > >> by Masatake Yamato from Red Hat in porting Crackerjack´s
>> > >> (https://sourceforge.net/projects/crackerjack) regression tests to LTP
>> > >> format. Thanks Garrett for taking this initiative. We need to
>> > >> collaborate much more with others as well.
>> > >>
>> > >> Regards--
>> > >> Subrata
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 1. LTP -- Linux test project: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/
>> > >> > 2. Upstart -- init(1) replacement: http://upstart.ubuntu.com/
>> > >> > 3. LTP cvsweb -- http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/ (see docs for
>> > >> > relevant documentation items, lib/ltp for test lib API's, and
>> > >> > testcases/commands for existing Linux command blackbox tests).
>> >
>> > I haven't followed this up, but to be honest our group using upstart
>> > has started using Python nose to write testcases for blackbox level
>> > testing, and it's proven to be largely successful in finding basic
>> > issues within the provided spec by the upstart folks.
>> >
>> > I don't know if the test code can be easily committed back because it
>> > has Cisco IP -- I'll talk to Sarvi (tech lead) and Corey (the manager)
>> > about that.
>
> Garret,
>
> Can we revive this ?
>
> Regards--
> Subrata
>
>>
>> It would be great in such a case.
>>
>> >
>> > As for whitebox testing, we should definitely follow up the intiative
>> > for using tst_res.
>> >
>>
>> Yes. And as you said, keep the momentum going for having the tst_*
>> functions under varied programming language. Let it take itś own course
>> and time, but, we should keep up the gear.
>>
>> Regards--
>> Subrata
>>
>> > -Garrett

    No time.
-Garrett