[aerogear-dev] New proposal: Making integration test specific repo

[Kris Borchers]

Bruno and I have already started working on something like this for JS. I 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 repo.

On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko at 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.
>  aerogear/aerogear-test-harness

+1 but would prefer that each component (JS, Android, iOS, etc.) have their own integration test repos
> * Aerogear components do not contain integration tests

+1
> * 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Karel
> 
> [1] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-May/002471.html
> [2] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-July/003912.html
> [3] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-July/003944.html
> [4] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-July/003979.html
> [5] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-July/004127.html
> [6] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/2013-July/004096.html
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev