Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 5, 2022. It is now read-only.

meta-iotqa: add qa tests for flatpak. #260

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

shashwatpandey221091
Copy link

Add tests for flatpak python interface.

Signed-off-by: Shashwat Pandey [email protected]

@shashwatpandey221091
Copy link
Author

Please help to test this build.

@refkit-ci
Copy link

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@okartau
Copy link
Contributor

okartau commented Jul 26, 2017

ok to test

@okartau
Copy link
Contributor

okartau commented Jul 26, 2017

I noticed there is proxy value set, which may be good in development context, but may be sub-optimal in CI system

@shashwatpandey221091
Copy link
Author

Noted. For now the concerned script is disabled due the external network dependency.

Will remove the proxy value set from the CI system. Thanks for the input.

@epyeoh
Copy link
Contributor

epyeoh commented Jul 27, 2017

Hi SP,
2 comments:

  1. I noticed the commit message is "Add tests for flatpak python interface.", but I noticed that you are mainly testing flatpak commandline, right?
  2. Both test_flatpak_list.py and test_flatpak_version.py are executing single commandline, will it be possible to get rid of the python script with direct execution of in the unit test itself?

@shashwatpandey221091
Copy link
Author

Hi Peng,

  1. Yes, for listing and checking version of flatpak, just using the command line. Though for installation and running application, performing some python operation. But since both test_flatpak_install.py and test_flatpak_runapp.py scripts are disabled for now, it's basically testing flatpak using command line.

  2. It's a good suggestion of including the command line in the unit test itself instead of calling python script. Will update the unit test accordingly.

Thanks.

@shashwatpandey221091
Copy link
Author

Updated as per Peng's suggestions. Please test.

@shashwatpandey221091
Copy link
Author

Please remove the test build label and review the pull request. Also merge it to the master branch if looks ok.

Thanks.

@ipuustin ipuustin changed the title (test build) Flatpak: add qa tests for flatpak. Flatpak: add qa tests for flatpak. Aug 8, 2017
Add tests for flatpak command line.

Signed-off-by: Shashwat Pandey <[email protected]>
@shashwatpandey221091 shashwatpandey221091 changed the title Flatpak: add qa tests for flatpak. meta-iotqa: add qa tests for flatpak. Aug 15, 2017
@epyeoh
Copy link
Contributor

epyeoh commented Aug 15, 2017

@klihub please help to review this flatpak test cases.

@klihub
Copy link
Contributor

klihub commented Aug 22, 2017

@epyeoh These test cases are ok as such, but they look very basic to me: list installed flatpaks (without checking the output) and run a known flatpak application (without checking its output or anything else).

Have you taken a look at what Patrick has done for ostree ? If you'd write similar test cases then I'd expect to have a some test set like:

  • basic test for installing and application (check list of apps prior to installation, check that new app show up after the installation)
  • basic test for removing the installed application (check list of apps prior to installation, check that the removed app disappear after removal)
  • basic test for updating an application (have a known flatpak app which print something known and exit, create and export an new version which prints something else, check that after the update it prints the new string)

Have you considered something along those lines ?

@epyeoh
Copy link
Contributor

epyeoh commented Aug 22, 2017

@klihub Yes, current test case is basic tests for flatpak.
Our initial plan is to:

  1. First, develop basic tests (which is current set of tests), then
  2. Develop advance tests following Patrick ostree tests
    We hope that this set of basic tests will be able to complete first.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants