You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to test-dev@httpd.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 2001/11/27 22:48:56 UTC
Testing remote server
I want to automate some testing of Apache 2.0 on Win32, but I
want to use scripts I developed for Unixish systems. Is there
any way to tell t/TEST that it should look elsewhere than
localhost for the server? I don't mind installing the package
on the Windoze machine and getting things going with
t\TEST -start, but I want the actual test requests to come
from elsewhere.
Can it be done?
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
Re: Testing remote server
Posted by john sachs <js...@covalent.net>.
as was mentioned earlier, some test write to the server root, perhaps we could add a special directive so you could do something like this in your plan line:
plan tests => 5, have_module 'foo' && have_local_server_root
where 'have_local_server_root' could be named whatever we think appropriate and is set to 1 unless -servername is specified on the command line.
then tests that require access to server root could be skipped when you are testing on a remote host.
whatchooguysthink?
-j
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:50:07PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
+ Doug MacEachern wrote:
+ >
+ > > Not without some trickery: loads of the scripts rely on being able to
+ > > write directly to the server root.
+ >
+ > we should fix that. the original plan was for this to work:
+ > % t/TEST -run -port 8080 -servername foo
+ >
+ > and have the .t's hit http://foo:8080
+
+ Was 'foo' supposed to be a vhost on the current system, or
+ was it supposed to be able to be a remote system? The
+ latter is my goal (testing things like DAV on Win32 bites
+ the Harry Houdini..).
+ --
+ #ken P-)}
+
+ Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
+ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
+
+ "All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
Re: Testing remote server
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> it does run (and fails) with 2.0.
The question is "why"? Why doesn't it get a 500 when it
encounters a bogus line in the .htaccess file? I haven't
verified it yet; what does the first request say with -v or
-d lwp?
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
Re: Testing remote server
Posted by Doug MacEachern <do...@covalent.net>.
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> That test shouldn't even *run* for 2.0; it should get a 500
> and skip.
it does run (and fails) with 2.0. i just changed it to require apache
1.x for the moment, which i just realized isn't good enough. should
probably be something like:
my $config = Apache::Test::config();
plan tests => $testcount, sub {
have_apache(1) && $config->{httpd_info}->{MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER} ...
};
Re: Testing remote server
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> if you don't need the config object, you could have Makefile.PL
> generate this stuff (like the etags stuff you checked in). and just add
> the top-level directory of the generated tree here:
> clean => { FILES => "@scripts @other_generated_stuff" },
>
> otherwise would much rather make adjustments so we don't need
> to maintain a bazillion tiny static files in cvs.
Heh, didn't even realise that was possible or reasonable. I'll
look into it..
> most of the etags tests fail, is that expected?
That test shouldn't even *run* for 2.0; it should get a 500
and skip.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
Re: Testing remote server
Posted by Doug MacEachern <do...@covalent.net>.
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> In that case, would anyone object if I occasionally modify tests
> that currently frob .htaccess files so that they use static
> settings (such as separate directories or <Files> containers)
> in the t/htdocs/ tree?
if you don't need the config object, you could have Makefile.PL
generate this stuff (like the etags stuff you checked in). and just add
the top-level directory of the generated tree here:
clean => { FILES => "@scripts @other_generated_stuff" },
otherwise would much rather make adjustments so we don't need
to maintain a bazillion tiny static files in cvs.
p.s.
most of the etags tests fail, is that expected?
Re: Testing remote server
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > Was 'foo' supposed to be a vhost on the current system, or
> > was it supposed to be able to be a remote system? The
> > latter is my goal (testing things like DAV on Win32 bites
> > the Harry Houdini..).
>
> the latter.
In that case, would anyone object if I occasionally modify tests
that currently frob .htaccess files so that they use static
settings (such as separate directories or <Files> containers)
in the t/htdocs/ tree?
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
Re: Testing remote server
Posted by Doug MacEachern <do...@covalent.net>.
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Was 'foo' supposed to be a vhost on the current system, or
> was it supposed to be able to be a remote system? The
> latter is my goal (testing things like DAV on Win32 bites
> the Harry Houdini..).
the latter.
Re: Testing remote server
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> > Not without some trickery: loads of the scripts rely on being able to
> > write directly to the server root.
>
> we should fix that. the original plan was for this to work:
> % t/TEST -run -port 8080 -servername foo
>
> and have the .t's hit http://foo:8080
Was 'foo' supposed to be a vhost on the current system, or
was it supposed to be able to be a remote system? The
latter is my goal (testing things like DAV on Win32 bites
the Harry Houdini..).
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
Re: Testing remote server
Posted by Doug MacEachern <do...@covalent.net>.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Gary Benson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > Can it be done?
>
> Not without some trickery: loads of the scripts rely on being able to
> write directly to the server root.
we should fix that. the original plan was for this to work:
% t/TEST -run -port 8080 -servername foo
and have the .t's hit http://foo:8080
Re: Testing remote server
Posted by Gary Benson <gb...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Can it be done?
Not without some trickery: loads of the scripts rely on being able to
write directly to the server root.
Gary
[ gbenson@redhat.com ][ GnuPG 85A8F78B ][ http://inauspicious.org/ ]