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

[Subrata Modak]

On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:44 -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: 
> 2008/12/13 Garrett Cooper <yanegomi at gmail.com>:
> > 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
> 
> Ok, I have a bit more time now and it's become an issue Cisco side, so
> it's important that this gets done ASAP.
> 
> We (my group in Cisco) needs a library that's LGPL2.1/BSD licensed so
> we don't violate the GPL, and I didn't get a response from SGI about
> relicensing the components, so I'll need to recreate the C library
> provided the API's provided on the LTP page.
> 
> I'll see about getting this all ironed out in the next two weeks.

And this ?

Regards--
Subrata

> 
> Thanks,
> -Garrett