New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move release related code outside of the twisted package #3138
Comments
In my opinion this does nothing but create an operational hassle (adjusting the buildbots, adjusting each developer's checkout to remember to run the 'release' tests as well, etc). What problem is this ticket trying to solve? If it's that _release is private and shouldn't be released, or that the code is not related to the rest of twisted.python, perhaps we can have a private twisted._release package - after all, we already have packages excluded from the release. (If it's something else then please elaborate, but I still have a hunch this is going to create more problems than it solves.) |
My main concern with this code is the direct call to the latex command line. This makes it a functional test, and it appears it doesn't work everywhere: http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/community/trunk/x86%20Red%20Hat%209%20trunk/builds/1933/step-Twisted.zope.dev/0 |
Wouldn't it be better to make this test optional, depending on the presence of an appropriate latex setup? |
Good luck figuring out if a particular latex setup is appropriate or not. :) |
I agree with exarkun. Also, I think we want to remove all the 'skip' in these tests, to be sure that the tests are always run. We want a stable slave with pydoctor (with correct version), latex, etc... that doesn't silently skip the tests. |
I wonder if the idea of "test resources" (is that what they're called?) from the stdlib test runner would help out here at all. Splitting the release code into a separate package would help avoid failing tests in cases where no one cares about them, but the same problem applies to SSL and SSH. If you don't have pyOpenSSL, tests should fail. Unless you somehow say you really don't care about SSL. Or maybe it's actually not a similar case. |
I think that's a fairly similar case. I don't know if the skip solution is more elegant or not. The problem with it is that we don't monitor the numbers of skips, ie we don't have "unexpected skips". |
Replying to exarkun:
I have no idea what these are.
I think this is definitely a similar (the same) case. It's just more obvious here that the user has to make a decision because we can't simply look to see whether an import fails or not :). |
Also, the idea of making an explicit decision to avoid "unexpected skips" is a great idea. +1. |
The release related code was removed from trunk/admin not long ago, so this can be closed? |
The ticket is about removing |
The current
The plan is to replace these custom scripts with direct CLI calls. I think that this can be closed as we now have separate tickets for removing each part of the release script |
I don't think it should be in there. We can at least easily move _release.py and the related tests in a top package. We must add a buildbot that also runs these tests though.
Searchable metadata
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: