Project

Profile

Help

Issue #4000

Tests in master are failing due to a change in pulp_file

Added by daviddavis about 1 year ago. Updated 6 months ago.

Status:
MODIFIED
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
-
Sprint/Milestone:
Start date:
Due date:
Severity:
3. High
Version:
Platform Release:
Blocks Release:
OS:
Backwards Incompatible:
No
Triaged:
No
Groomed:
No
Sprint Candidate:
No
Tags:
QA Contact:
Complexity:
Smash Test:
Verified:
No
Verification Required:
No
Sprint:

Description

A recent change in pulp_file0 has caused the tests in pulp to fail. The issue is that tests in pulp are coupled to the pulp_file plugin code1 and we're not running pulpcore tests against pulp_file. So any changes to pulp_file could unknowingly break the tests in pulpcore.

The purist in me thinks that we should not have the tests in pulpcore be dependent on the code in pulp_file and that these tests should be moved to pulp_file. We're running the pulp_file tests against all pulpcore PRs anyway so moving them wouldn't hurt.

The simplest option however would be to fix these tests and then run the pulpcore tests against pulp_file PRs. That feels kind of wrong but it's quick and easy.

The third and final option I can think of (and I'm not totally sure how this would work) is to create a bare/mock plugin inside the test framework and have the pulpcore smash tests use it for tests that require a plugin and content units.

[0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/115
[1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/tree/master/pulpcore/tests/functional/api/using_plugin


Related issues

Related to File Support - Story #3912: As a user, I can specify the file manifest name on the remote when syncing and publishing a repository MODIFIED Actions
Related to File Support - Story #3913: As a user I can specify the manifest filename when publishing a repo version MODIFIED Actions

Associated revisions

Revision 23f9b5f5 View on GitHub
Added by daviddavis about 1 year ago

Fixing tests after change in pulp_file and sphinx options

re #4000
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4000

fixes #4005
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4005

Revision 23f9b5f5 View on GitHub
Added by daviddavis about 1 year ago

Fixing tests after change in pulp_file and sphinx options

re #4000
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4000

fixes #4005
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4005

Revision 23f9b5f5 View on GitHub
Added by daviddavis about 1 year ago

Fixing tests after change in pulp_file and sphinx options

re #4000
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4000

fixes #4005
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4005

Revision f3fad23f View on GitHub
Added by daviddavis about 1 year ago

Run pulpcore functional tests as part of the Travis job

Since pulpcore functional tests use pulp_file, a change in pulp_file
could break these tests.

closes #4000
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4000

History

#1 Updated by daviddavis about 1 year ago

This is causing all PRs against the Pulp master branch to fail so I'm setting the severity to high.

#2 Updated by daviddavis about 1 year ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#3 Updated by daviddavis about 1 year ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#4 Updated by daviddavis about 1 year ago

  • Subject changed from Tests in master are failing to Tests in master are failing due to a change in pulp_file

#5 Updated by dalley about 1 year ago

Long-term, I'm neutral on a mock plugin. Short-term, we should keep the tests in pulpcore, and we should run the "using_plugin" tests in pulpcore along w/ pulp_file.

#6 Updated by daviddavis about 1 year ago

  • Related to Story #3912: As a user, I can specify the file manifest name on the remote when syncing and publishing a repository added

#7 Updated by daviddavis about 1 year ago

  • Related to Story #3913: As a user I can specify the manifest filename when publishing a repo version added

#8 Updated by daviddavis about 1 year ago

  • Status changed from NEW to POST
  • Assignee set to daviddavis

#9 Updated by jortel@redhat.com about 1 year ago

Short term, I agree with fixing the tests.

Long term, I think having core tests rely on the file plugin is undesirable as demonstrated by this incident. I don't think having a test (mock) plugin in core code tree is a good idea. However, including a TestPlugin in the pulpcore/tests/functional code tree seems reasonable.

#10 Updated by daviddavis about 1 year ago

Cool, thanks for the feedback @dalley and @jortel. I will use this bug to fix the tests.

I've opened a separate issue to continue discussions around using a test plugin: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4003.

#11 Updated by kersom about 1 year ago

Based on the previous comments, I think that if certain core feature requires a plugin in order to be tested this test should live inside the plugin repository, and not be part of the core repository.

Besides that, if possible we should use one plugin to test all the core features that require a plugin. Or at least, most of the features.

#12 Updated by daviddavis about 1 year ago

  • Status changed from POST to MODIFIED

#13 Updated by daviddavis 6 months ago

  • Sprint/Milestone set to 3.0

#14 Updated by bmbouter 6 months ago

  • Tags deleted (Pulp 3)

Please register to edit this issue

Also available in: Atom PDF