Potential improvements to run-tests.py
spectral at pewpew.net
Mon Oct 27 14:44:33 CDT 2014
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com>
> I've been writing a lot of tests for Mozilla's Mercurial infrastructure
> recently . Our test "harness" is a glorified (and very hacky) wrapper
> around run-tests.py .
> As part of writing all these tests, I've identified a number of areas for
> improving run-tests.py. I hope to find time to contribute some patches
> upstream once things quiet down here. In the mean time, I thought I'd send
> ideas to get people thinking (and possibly to entice other contributors).
> The common theme for the following improvements is increasing re-usability
> of the test harness. This will enable extension authors and other Mercurial
> users to more easily write tests. Yes, we have cram  today. But I'm
> mainly focused on Mercurial. And, I think that with a little work, we could
> refactor Mercurial's testing code to have a generic base layer that is
> effectively cram.
> * Ability to declare your own variables for substitutions. When comparing
> output, we substitute variables/strings like $HGPORT. These come from a
> hard-coded list. I want to make it possible for the test to define its own
I'm currently working on a way of specifying a "replacements file", so that
you can provide a file that looks like:
and it'll do the replacements (just like HGPORT, etc.). This isn't planned
to be per-test, though. I'm doing this because I want to play around with
various hashing schemes, and all the hashes being hardcoded has caused this
to be an extreme pain, so I'm trying to make a way of working around that.
> * Consider dynamic port numbers. Once variable substitutions can be
> declared from tests, we don't need to do the silly pre-defined port numbers
> mess ($HGPORT, $HGPORT1, etc). Instead, we can let things bind to an open
> port automatically. This will help prevent failures from tests trying to
> use a port some other program is using or from tests that don't clean up
> well causing cascading test failures.
I would also like this, because it makes running the tests on remote
machines a bit more.. plausible. :)
> * Consider a generic "register cleanup" mechanism from .t tests. Many of
> the .t tests I'm writing start Docker containers and stop/remove them when
> the test is complete. If we ctrl+c the test, the containers keep running.
> I'd like to add a mechanism that allows tests to declare what cleanup
> actions to run when the test exists. This is probably "write a list of
> commands to a file which will be executed by the shell." This could
> eventually eliminate $DAEMON_PIDS handling from the test harness itself.
> * hghave as a module. Calling hghave as a separate process is silly. mpm
> added #require a little while back. run-tests.py should load hghave from a
> module and invoke it as an API.
> * Extensible hghave. Downstream test authors may need to write custom
> hghave checks. For example, I added "#require docker." The current design
> of hghave makes this difficult.
> * Allow the running of the same .t test from multiple Mercurial versions
> or Python versions, all from the same TestRunner invocation. Currently, we
> can't do this because things like result recording assume the test name is
> globally unique.
> * Make it easier to run tests from multiple directories. Our repository
> has many different components and .t tests in various directories. When you
> run a .t test from a child directory, $TESTDIR is the directory where the
> tests started executing from, not where the .t test is. Relative paths, etc
> are a bit wonky, making it a little harder to write tests and maintain.
> * Consider moving all the testing code into reusable modules. Right now,
> run-tests.py can't be used with "import" (because of the hyphen). There are
> also a handful of support files (hghave.py, heredoctest.py, killdaemons.py,
> silenttestrunner.py, etc) that run-tests assumes are importable. I'd like
> to establishing *mercurial.testing* (or something like it) and move all the
> potentially reusable test code there. 3rd party consumers could potentially
> consume these files from a Mercurial install. Or, they could install a
> separate pypi package containing just the testing code. Worst case, they
> copy a directory from the Mercurial source tree.
Yes please :)
> * Support running via nose. I'd like to be able to run .t tests via nose.
> This requires more refactoring of the unittest-derived classes and some
> layer violations to be cleaned up. Benefits to doing this are things like
> code coverage generation and result capturing could be deferred to nose and
> not implemented in run-tests.py. This may require Mercurial to drop Python
> 2.4/2.5 before this is fully achievable.
> * Better handle varying output from different Mercurial versions. The test
> harness I built runs tests against Mercurial 2.5.4 through @ (because I
> want to test extensions against all the versions users could be running).
> The output of some Mercurial commands has changed over that time. e.g. 3.2
> adds the "entering bookmark" messages. I don't like |>/dev/null| because
> that undermines some of the utility of a test. I think we may need to
> introduce a "this output is optional" syntax or something similar.
> I know I have more ideas. But these are the major ones.
> Feedback before I start patchbombing is encouraged. You likely have a
> month or two before I find the time to work on these.
>  http://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2014/10/14/robustly-testing-
>  https://hg.mozilla.org/hgcustom/version-control-
>  https://bitbucket.org/brodie/cram
> Mercurial-devel mailing list
> Mercurial-devel at selenic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mercurial-devel