From: Garrett C. <yan...@gm...> - 2008-12-14 04:33:25
|
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Subrata Modak <su...@li...> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 14:05 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 14:26 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Subrata Modak >> > <su...@li...> wrote: >> > > Garrett, >> > > >> > > Is there any headway with upstart developers regarding this initiative. >> > > I dug out this mail from my mailbox to find this. Let me know if we can >> > > resume this discussion once again. >> > > >> > > Regards-- >> > > Subrata >> > > >> > > On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 19:06 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote: >> > >> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 05:26 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> > >> > Hello LTP gurus (and upstart gurus), >> > >> > As I mentioned before on the upstart-devel list, one of the >> > >> > goals of the groups that I'm working with is to bring upstart -- the >> > >> > init replacement -- to Cisco's Linux based platform for process >> > >> > monitoring and management. As part of that we (my teammates and I) >> > >> > were thinking of including whitebox and blackbox tests with LTP (Linux >> > >> > test project) to try and unify testing of critical Linux components, >> > >> > and also provide deterministic output also with greater visibility in >> > >> > the testing community. >> > >> > LTP has a number of whitebox and blackbox tests in place [3], >> > >> > most of the whitebox tests being C API's and the blackbox tests being >> > >> > shell invocations of Unix commands, as well as a well-defined set of >> > >> > test reporting API's and functions already in place. >> > >> >> > >> Ah!. That reminds me of the testcases for commands in LTP: >> > >> >> > >> http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/commands/ >> > >> >> > >> I have been merging lots of patches and we were totally engaged with our >> > >> white box test cases, that we completely forgot about those black box >> > >> test cases, which are of immense help for: >> > >> >> > >> 1) Increasing code coverage for the kernel, >> > >> 2) Testing the actual/mostly-used interfaces to the Linux OS. >> > >> >> > >> Thanks Garrett for reminding this valuable testcases piece. And the >> > >> important point here to make is: >> > >> >> > >> Writing white box test cases requires fair knowledge of Kernel >> > >> Internals, whereas the Blackbox test cases just requires user knowledge >> > >> of the OS. With guidance from the Man Pages information, a huge >> > >> community of administrators and normal users can write these black box >> > >> tests. And they are a huge group of people to count. I need to look into >> > >> this seriously from now. >> > >> >> > >> > So, my question is two-fold: >> > >> > 1. Would the upstart project be willing to work with LTP (via my >> > >> > team as a proxy in the beginning) to enter some unit test code and >> > >> > other test cases into LTP's test framework / overall testsuite, and >> > >> > improve acceptance in the Linux testing community? >> > >> >> > >> I would be providing you the support with testing on the architectures i >> > >> have at my disposal and speedy patch merge to LTP. We definitely need to >> > >> do something to increase the code coverage. >> > >> >> > >> > 2. Would either group be willing to work with my team to help >> > >> > maintain these testcases and develop new ones? >> > >> >> > >> Of course, i will. >> > >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > -Garrett >> > >> > >> > >> > PS. Sorry for the cross-posting ; I try not to do this, but >> > >> > considering that both groups can benefit from the discussion I wanted >> > >> > to involve both. >> > >> >> > >> Nothing to worry about. When it comes to making Linux better, we need >> > >> collaboration on various fronts. The livest example being the work done >> > >> by Masatake Yamato from Red Hat in porting Crackerjack´s >> > >> (https://sourceforge.net/projects/crackerjack) regression tests to LTP >> > >> format. Thanks Garrett for taking this initiative. We need to >> > >> collaborate much more with others as well. >> > >> >> > >> Regards-- >> > >> Subrata >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > 1. LTP -- Linux test project: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/ >> > >> > 2. Upstart -- init(1) replacement: http://upstart.ubuntu.com/ >> > >> > 3. LTP cvsweb -- http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/ (see docs for >> > >> > relevant documentation items, lib/ltp for test lib API's, and >> > >> > testcases/commands for existing Linux command blackbox tests). >> > >> > I haven't followed this up, but to be honest our group using upstart >> > has started using Python nose to write testcases for blackbox level >> > testing, and it's proven to be largely successful in finding basic >> > issues within the provided spec by the upstart folks. >> > >> > I don't know if the test code can be easily committed back because it >> > has Cisco IP -- I'll talk to Sarvi (tech lead) and Corey (the manager) >> > about that. > > Garret, > > Can we revive this ? > > Regards-- > Subrata > >> >> It would be great in such a case. >> >> > >> > As for whitebox testing, we should definitely follow up the intiative >> > for using tst_res. >> > >> >> Yes. And as you said, keep the momentum going for having the tst_* >> functions under varied programming language. Let it take itś own course >> and time, but, we should keep up the gear. >> >> Regards-- >> Subrata >> >> > -Garrett No time. -Garrett |