[PATCH weston] tests: Adding simple waycheck validation tool.

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:36:33 -0700
Bryce Harrington <bryce at osg.samsung.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:17:53PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Wed,  7 Oct 2015 16:11:43 -0700
> > "Jon A. Cruz" <jonc at osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Adds an initial implementation of a testing tool that uses the unit
> > > test framework to run checks against an arbitrary Wayland compositor.
> > > Note that this is not intended for Weston-specific testing, but for
> > > generic Wayland testing.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jon A. Cruz <jonc at osg.samsung.com>
> > 
> > Hi Jon,
> > 
> > nice to see progress. :-)
> > 
> > I tested, waycheck runs fine if you run it manually. So this patch is
> > not even intended to hook it up to 'make check' at all, but just
> > compile a program you can run with any compositor?
> > 
> > When you later do hook things up into Weston's 'make check', will that
> > re-use the waycheck code or only the wayland_fixtures code?
> > 
> > I think the commit message should say which existing upstream tests
> > this patch reimplements. If it doesn't, it should say what we are
> > testing instead, in few words. Comments in waycheck.c could explain in
> > more detail about what is being tested.
> 
> Further, I am not sure we should land this until the test cases have
> been reimplemented to use it.  Having two test frameworks in the
> codebase increases complexity, and it's already tough to find folks to
> work on tests.

We are already past that, we already have two frameworks here.

I think it's better to land this stuff in pieces than massage a
humongous replace-the-world patch series, if we can tell the pieces are
going in the right direction. The bits here are mostly just following
the existing weston-test-client-helper.c (which the commit message
forgot to mention).

But yeah, probably makes sense to see how hooking even this stuff up to
'make check' would happen before landing this. That will be one of the
most interesting things here. This patch as is does not add anything to
'make check' which is a little awkward for a series adding new test
code.

As for writing tests in the mean time, people should just ignore the
new framework for now, and write tests as if it didn't exist as long as
it doesn't support what the old framework does.

This way we can incrementally advance on both fronts at the same time.


Thanks,
pq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20151015/0aad662b/attachment.sig>