My only concern about having test integration tests repos separated is a boom
of repositories in Aerogear organization. If this does not happen to be a
problem, I'm fine with that.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:40:09 -0500
Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Bruno and I have already started working on something like this for
have a couple of comments inline which will illustrate why I think this
should be separated by component and not one single aerogear-test-harness
On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> there were already plenty of discussions about integration tests in Aerogear
> [1-6]. As these are something most people want to execute in CI only and QE
> wants to have better control over commits, I'd like to introduce new model
> that I hope will improve current state:
> * Integration tests are hosted in separate repository, e.g.
+1 but would prefer that each component (JS, Android, iOS, etc.) have their
own integration test repos
> * Aerogear components do not contain integration tests
> * Aerogear components have .travis.yml modified to clone
> aerogear-test-harness repository and execute appropriate component
> integration tests in CI after each commit into component
This is the part where I think they need to be separate. I don't want to have
to clone that entire repo including the tests and config for other components
when I am testing JS.
> * QE and devs have commit access to aerogear-test-harness repository
+1 to QE having access to all testing repos
> * Aerogear-test-harness contains modules per integration test scenario, e.g.
> a module for unified-push-server or a module for simple-push-server. Any
> module can use different tools and/or language, whatever fits the test
> scenario best way.
Again, this is solved by separate repos.
> Tolis already solved outstanding technical problems, either it is
> requirement to depend on latest component state without polluting
> repository with local installation, versioning or ability to make it
> importable to an IDE.
> Let me know if you like it, we can proceed filling its content today.
>  http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-May/002471.html
>  http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-July/003912.html
>  http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-July/003944.html
>  http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-July/003979.html
>  http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-July/004127.html
>  http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-July/004096.html
> aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev mailing list