From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51622) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hi6O3-0008IM-VO for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:11:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hi6Nz-0005TM-Ul for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:11:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:37495) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hi6Ny-0005SO-2d for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:11:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hi6Nx-0004kH-Qg for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:11:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#36404] [PATCH 0/6] Add 'guix deploy'. Resent-Message-ID: From: zerodaysfordays@sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) References: <87o92ianbj.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87o92glap5.fsf@dustycloud.org> <878sthoqzi.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:10:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <878sthoqzi.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Mon, 01 Jul 2019 14:53:53 +0200") Message-ID: <87r2799tzd.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 36404@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Ludovic + Ricardo! Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Building and running virtual machines as part of the tests > seems expensive. Would it be feasible to mock the remote > interactions? I agree 100%. I've decoupled it from my patch series for now. We can always add it back later when it's implemented in a less expensive way. As for mocking -- I do like that idea, but that would only really be testing that calls to 'deploy-machine' et al. don't fail rather than ensuring that the implementation of 'guix deploy' does what it's supposed to do. The current tests make assertions about changes to the virtual machine. Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > As Ricardo wrote, I think that=E2=80=99s too much work to do in =E2=80=9C= make check=E2=80=9D. > Plus this would only run when a =E2=80=9Chost store=E2=80=9D is available= , as we can=E2=80=99t > reasonably build QEMU and everything in $builddir/test-tmp. > > So I feel that the system test suite is a better fit, but I don=E2=80=99t > fully understand the limitations you hit, Jakob. > > Do you still have a draft of a system test that you wrote and/or notes > about what went wrong? Yep, I have an unsquashed commit history on my personal branch with all renditions of the test suite. I can pull it out tomorrow and write a detailed report on the issues I ran into. Thanks for both of your comments! --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEa1VJLOiXAjQ2BGSm9Qb9Fp2P2VoFAl0aoPYACgkQ9Qb9Fp2P 2VqHCg/+LJNO1ZF6NrWWS71gXjJlIgllQWYkerDPKE/kq8QhB17lTXkXEWsp+C6u CM12n7kszLHHRTG/y2N7+noQVy2YbOsIoODfJ3RK/oJ+tLwlcH6Ce6XajV9dKis/ 4f5FCRwHtr+cqDqnNzwnUTzzpLsHur/HmFWySgt4gpeijO3ran1Wsgoq7Bodk/tS pjVc3SuxK0fDuc3zg/b9ZiPwq2N1UdbAjOXF00OkOpttDitFNSK/Za0zUxTcxwPW rVngx8YGG1ExRfm+1jqOsmESpt6DP7mfp82JALZnB/cQC284ylYfVfWNNqt7jatv aTGiRKjOomrwkBa1R6zkbaQjiWk+LxXJGFlzjP4yWnmKZNxG0DniAjD4qCXu0KBw gklHMBxj7Tsijp7VntR2cpBB/TbsjazYHtZDbNZAYuxobbNUFPbrLHQeCOwfqyl+ SDzWQdw4vtnvJ6dGigEb2cCgsmHwPgRIZUN1ktFiRiUw7p7HVD3O0RxW8oG+Tgkf XM32kaj63Y11kb3iJIpphOq/l4Zjk/H/kdgYGBt0y3kSl5GjCo2/FzwGj05Yq1gY mdd3N3M++QVMzNy+Nz52c/cHjPgnRbfd8f74LnwOvpcEvcGJENh2dpRfJnTfKJbb +4C/nIY9M0eMgjOCCpAo3NQFmcGOjAkFk3NQpRs8R205PFmMJ/s= =9Bbp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--