<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Nigel Babu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nigelb@redhat.com" target="_blank">nigelb@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I've already tried to redirect this thread once. Please use the upstream automated-testing@ list rather than CCing half the world. This is a discussion that needs to happen and be decided in the open.</div><div><br></div><div>Pranith/Prasanna: At the moment your problem is that you want to write tests in conjunction with your pull request and splitting into multiple repos do not give you this ability. Is that the compelling reason why you want this to happen in the gluster-block repo directly rather than glusto-tests?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. Goal is to be able to test HEAD with tests at HEAD, write tests once and be done. It would be nice if we can come up with a solution that doesn't lead to duplication of efforts from contributors to these two different projects like it is happening with GlusterFS now. How can we make that possible?<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><br></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 5:40 PM Pranith Kumar Karampuri <<a href="mailto:pkarampu@redhat.com" target="_blank">pkarampu@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, 4:02 pm Rahul Hinduja, <<a href="mailto:rhinduja@redhat.com" target="_blank">rhinduja@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Prasanna Kalever <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pkalever@redhat.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">pkalever@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="m_5601961570025086875m_1302852605509411705m_880638634157496830gmail-">On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Vijay Bhaskar Reddy Avuthu<br>
<<a href="mailto:vavuthu@redhat.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">vavuthu@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> + Rahul<br>
><br>
> Currently all the components of Gluster are under "gluster-tests" repo, I<br>
> would recommend the same for block. Another reason is its easy for QE to<br>
> track and trigger runs whenever is needed.<br>
<br>
</span>+Vijay Bellur, +Amar<br>
<br>
The block dev is keeping the continuous effort here to catch the<br>
regression that might be introduced at each PR level, it will be easy<br>
for the contributes to run the tests locally, if they are part of the<br>
same repository. Downloading a different repository just to test the<br>
code that goes in guster-block repository doesn't make any sense to<br>
me. I'm not aware of any opensource project which would like their<br>
tests to maintained as part of a separate repository. At-least I<br>
wouldn't encourage this with gluster-block.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thats not true, if we go with this path than whats blocking us from having multiple repositories like "ganesha", "geo-rep", "smb", "afr" etc. </div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>Even though currently gluster dev worked on gluster block libs and cases but we worked as a team in sprint-2 to achieve this. QE has contributed<br></div><div>maximum across glusto and will continue to invest time and resources in glusto project [1] including block. <br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Our work of integration with glusto which started even before stop-gap work was to enable development team to write test cases along with the feature/bug-fix and send them in same PR. This way, the behaviour of the project at that HEAD will be tested correctly at that HEAD. If functionality changes then tests will change automatically.</div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">Asking contributors to send two separate patches to two different repos to get a change in the long run leads either to stale tests or stale code.</span><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">It is a head ache better to avoid for both the teams.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>All the cases irrespective of features must go to a common glusto-tests repository. This would also help in central-CI and polarion reporting. <br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is definitely something we should get right. Otherwise it will again become the same story as glusterfs where ongoing development and QE will have to duplicate efforts in automating the test cases.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If we get this right by the time QE cycle starts there would be good amount of work already done by development team for automation and only the missing parts need to be automated by QE.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is there a way to get central-CI/polarion reporting to pull in tests from another repo and run them?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div><br>[1]: <a href="https://review.gluster.org/#/q/project:glusto-tests" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.gluster.org/#/<wbr>q/project:glusto-tests</a></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Thanks,<br>
--<br>
Prasanna<br>
<div class="m_5601961570025086875m_1302852605509411705m_880638634157496830gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="m_5601961570025086875m_1302852605509411705m_880638634157496830gmail-h5"><br>
<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Vijay A<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Prasanna Kalever <<a href="mailto:pkalever@redhat.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">pkalever@redhat.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> This was the plan long back, which Shwetha and myself had discussed,<br>
>> before even start work on the glusto tests for gluster-block, let me<br>
>> try to put the summary here:<br>
>><br>
>> Plan 1:<br>
>> Create a 'glusto/libs/' folder under gluster-block repo and start<br>
>> adding libraries there and then keep the tests at 'glusto/tests/'<br>
>> folder under gluster-block repo.<br>
>><br>
>> Plan 2:<br>
>> Push the libraries to glusto-tests repo and maintain the tests under<br>
>> gluster-block repo.<br>
>><br>
>> I'm okay with any of the above approaches.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks!<br>
>> --<br>
>> Prasanna<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Bhumika Goyal <<a href="mailto:bgoyal@redhat.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bgoyal@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Hi all,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > During stop-gap, we wrote some libraries(patch on gerrit) and test<br>
>> > cases(PR on gluster-block repo currently) for gluster-block using glusto.<br>
>> > Some of us think that having the glusto based test cases in the<br>
>> > gluster-block repo instead of glusto-tests repo would be easier for<br>
>> > developers to test their changes locally. In this way, we don't have to deal<br>
>> > with two repos for testing the changes every time.<br>
>> > What are your suggestions and is it okay to go with this approach?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Thanks,<br>
>> > Bhumika<br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="m_5601961570025086875gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">nigelb<br></div></div>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Pranith<br></div></div>
</div></div>