Issue #4000
closed
Tests in master are failing due to a change in pulp_file
Description
A recent change in pulp_file[0] has caused the tests in pulp to fail. The issue is that tests in pulp are coupled to the pulp_file plugin code[1] 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
Updated by daviddavis about 6 years ago
This is causing all PRs against the Pulp master branch to fail so I'm setting the severity to high.
Updated by daviddavis about 6 years ago
- Subject changed from Tests in master are failing to Tests in master are failing due to a change in pulp_file
Updated by dalley about 6 years 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.
Updated by daviddavis about 6 years 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
Updated by daviddavis about 6 years ago
- Related to Story #3913: As a user I can specify the manifest filename when publishing a repo version added
Updated by daviddavis about 6 years ago
- Status changed from NEW to POST
- Assignee set to daviddavis
Updated by jortel@redhat.com about 6 years 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.
Updated by daviddavis about 6 years 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.
Updated by kersom about 6 years 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.
Added by daviddavis about 6 years ago
Added by daviddavis about 6 years ago
Revision 23f9b5f5 | View on GitHub
Fixing tests after change in pulp_file and sphinx options
Added by daviddavis about 6 years ago
Revision f3fad23f | View on GitHub
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.
Updated by daviddavis about 6 years ago
- Status changed from POST to MODIFIED
Applied in changeset pulp_file:f3fad23f1a024682391f2a92b182282da6448977.
Updated by bmbouter almost 5 years ago
- Status changed from MODIFIED to CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE
.
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