Use test.directory.review instead of module list [#879662]

Comment	File	Size	Author
#9	pift.review-directory-879662-9.patch	754 bytes	jthorson
#8	879662-review-directory.patch	907 bytes	boombatower

Comment #1

boombatower CreditAttribution: boombatower commented 11 August 2010 at 20:15

Project:

Project Issue File Review

» Project issue file test

All part of #102102: Parse project .info files: present module list and dependency information and the way PIFT send instructions on what to test. Should use directory argument instead of module.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #2

rfay

English

Palisade, CO, USA

CreditAttribution: rfay commented 11 August 2010 at 20:24

Oddly, the file_example tests *still* aren't being tested, even now that the patch is committed. Hints on this? Is there a workaround? I've even done a retest, and file_example never gets tested.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #3

boombatower CreditAttribution: boombatower commented 11 August 2010 at 20:27

Once your dev tarball is regenerated then it should (crappy limitation that will be removed).

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #4

rfay

English

Palisade, CO, USA

CreditAttribution: rfay commented 11 August 2010 at 21:07

I had to make a new commit before it actually got tested, but that did the job.

Oddly, see http://qa.drupal.org/pifr/test/26934, debug() messages are being shown on qa.drupal.org. I thought they would not be displayed...

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #5

boombatower CreditAttribution: boombatower commented 11 August 2010 at 22:48

Nope...that was the original spec we decided on so people would know if they had them in their tests and could use them. Not sure we want to keep it that way but...

I am also going to guess that your dev tarball was rebuilt..because making another commit shouldn't do anything.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #6

rfay

English

Palisade, CO, USA

CreditAttribution: rfay commented 20 September 2010 at 05:15

This is an insidious and horrible #fail.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #7

boombatower CreditAttribution: boombatower commented 24 November 2010 at 22:46

Title:

New tests in a new .test file in a patch don't get executed

» Use test.directory.review instead of module list

Using 'test.directory.review' argument instead of module list should solve the latency issue.

Log in or register to post comments

File	Size
879662-review-directory.patch	907 bytes

Comment #9

jthorson CreditAttribution: jthorson commented 8 October 2011 at 23:23

File	Size
pift.review-directory-879662-9.patch	754 bytes

Re-rolled, with a couple tweaks to bring it up to date.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #10

rfay

English

Palisade, CO, USA

CreditAttribution: rfay commented 14 October 2011 at 21:08

I'd say that if this is the way to do it, let's get it in. Let's just make sure that we keep the arguments lists up-to-date in http://drupal.org/automated-testing, as they're a lot of magic that gets made up on the fly.

+++ b/pift.cron.inc
@@ -328,7 +328,10 @@ function pift_cron_queue_batch_build_branches_process(array &$batch, array &$bra
+      $item['plugin_argument']['test.directory.review'][] = 'sites/default/modules/' . $project->project['uri'];

I do hate PIFT having knowledge of the directory structure being used on PIFR, but if this is the way to do it, I'm good with it.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #11

jthorson CreditAttribution: jthorson commented 15 October 2011 at 23:15

I do hate PIFT having knowledge of the directory structure being used on PIFR

That's an interesting point ... I'd suggest we put this in, but create an issue (for tracking/history purposes) for decoupling the directory structures (perhaps make these settable, and require the client and server to be set the same?).

In any case, the 'sites/default/modules' piece is actually referring to the temporary directory that is created inside the 'sites/default/files/checkout/' root only for the duration of the review; so we're not really exposing much.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #12

rfay

English

Palisade, CO, USA

CreditAttribution: rfay commented 19 October 2011 at 04:03

It will be nice to get this in. I just did the same thing again (new test) and of course it doesn't get run.

Log in or register to post comments

Comment #13

boombatower CreditAttribution: boombatower commented 19 October 2011 at 18:35

The current design of pifr/pift was in migration when I was told to stop...because of that remnants like this argument exist. The PIFT side should tell PIFR what to do for a long list of reasons so the fact that it doesn't tell PIFR where to checkout modules is simply something I planned down the road and did with RD.