You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@trafficserver.apache.org by Alan Carroll <so...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> on 2017/06/02 16:50:18 UTC
Location for test plugins
PR 2042 has a special plugin in it which is used only for performing tests. This is just the first of something that is going to occur repeatedly in the future. These plugins are not written to be general purpose but will be effectively custom built specifically for the test. We should decide now how we want that structured. Some options are
* Put them in example.* Put them in tests/plugins* Put them in the directory containing the test.
My personal preference is the second. I think these plugins are unlikely to be good example plugins and they certainly aren't production ready. On the other hand, having a single place to look for test plugins is in my view useful and better than scattering them in different sub directories under tests.
Re: Location for test plugins
Posted by Alan Carroll <so...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
I agree with Jason.
On Thursday, June 8, 2017, 3:44:53 PM CDT, Jason Kenny <jk...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote:
given some time reflex on this.
I think I rather have the directory for plugins-for-testing to be under:
tests/tools/plugins/<plugin-name>
and the location for the test for a given plugin to be under
tests/plugins/<plugin-name>or tests/gold_tests/plugins
The main point is the plugins-for-testing should be under the location where other code exists for supporting testing... which is currently in tests/tools
Jason
On Friday, June 2, 2017 03:19:52 PM CDT, Jason Kenny <jk...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
I am fine with tests/plugins.
We just need to make sure the code is documented to say what it tests. Some cases will be one-off plugins while other will be reusable
Jason
On Friday, June 2, 2017, 3:17:52 PM CDT, Steven R. Feltner <sf...@godaddy.com> wrote:
+1 for tests/plugins. It should cut down on the confusion of someone trying to use it as a ‘real’ plugin versus putting it in the plugins/* directory structure.
On 6/2/17, 2:32 PM, "Leif Hedstrom" <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
+1 for tests/plugins as well.
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 for tests/plugins
>
> -Bryan
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Alan Carroll <so...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> PR 2042 has a special plugin in it which is used only for performing tests. This is just the first of something that is going to occur repeatedly in the future. These plugins are not written to be general purpose but will be effectively custom built specifically for the test. We should decide now how we want that structured. Some options are
>> * Put them in example.* Put them in tests/plugins* Put them in the directory containing the test.
>> My personal preference is the second. I think these plugins are unlikely to be good example plugins and they certainly aren't production ready. On the other hand, having a single place to look for test plugins is in my view useful and better than scattering them in different sub directories under tests.
>
Re: Location for test plugins
Posted by Jason Kenny <jk...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
given some time reflex on this.
I think I rather have the directory for plugins-for-testing to be under:
tests/tools/plugins/<plugin-name>
and the location for the test for a given plugin to be under
tests/plugins/<plugin-name>or tests/gold_tests/plugins
The main point is the plugins-for-testing should be under the location where other code exists for supporting testing... which is currently in tests/tools
Jason
On Friday, June 2, 2017 03:19:52 PM CDT, Jason Kenny <jk...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
I am fine with tests/plugins.
We just need to make sure the code is documented to say what it tests. Some cases will be one-off plugins while other will be reusable
Jason
On Friday, June 2, 2017, 3:17:52 PM CDT, Steven R. Feltner <sf...@godaddy.com> wrote:
+1 for tests/plugins. It should cut down on the confusion of someone trying to use it as a ‘real’ plugin versus putting it in the plugins/* directory structure.
On 6/2/17, 2:32 PM, "Leif Hedstrom" <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
+1 for tests/plugins as well.
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 for tests/plugins
>
> -Bryan
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Alan Carroll <so...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> PR 2042 has a special plugin in it which is used only for performing tests. This is just the first of something that is going to occur repeatedly in the future. These plugins are not written to be general purpose but will be effectively custom built specifically for the test. We should decide now how we want that structured. Some options are
>> * Put them in example.* Put them in tests/plugins* Put them in the directory containing the test.
>> My personal preference is the second. I think these plugins are unlikely to be good example plugins and they certainly aren't production ready. On the other hand, having a single place to look for test plugins is in my view useful and better than scattering them in different sub directories under tests.
>
Re: Location for test plugins
Posted by Jason Kenny <jk...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
I am fine with tests/plugins.
We just need to make sure the code is documented to say what it tests. Some cases will be one-off plugins while other will be reusable
Jason
On Friday, June 2, 2017, 3:17:52 PM CDT, Steven R. Feltner <sf...@godaddy.com> wrote:
+1 for tests/plugins. It should cut down on the confusion of someone trying to use it as a ‘real’ plugin versus putting it in the plugins/* directory structure.
On 6/2/17, 2:32 PM, "Leif Hedstrom" <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
+1 for tests/plugins as well.
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 for tests/plugins
>
> -Bryan
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Alan Carroll <so...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> PR 2042 has a special plugin in it which is used only for performing tests. This is just the first of something that is going to occur repeatedly in the future. These plugins are not written to be general purpose but will be effectively custom built specifically for the test. We should decide now how we want that structured. Some options are
>> * Put them in example.* Put them in tests/plugins* Put them in the directory containing the test.
>> My personal preference is the second. I think these plugins are unlikely to be good example plugins and they certainly aren't production ready. On the other hand, having a single place to look for test plugins is in my view useful and better than scattering them in different sub directories under tests.
>
Re: Location for test plugins
Posted by "Steven R. Feltner" <sf...@godaddy.com>.
+1 for tests/plugins. It should cut down on the confusion of someone trying to use it as a ‘real’ plugin versus putting it in the plugins/* directory structure.
On 6/2/17, 2:32 PM, "Leif Hedstrom" <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
+1 for tests/plugins as well.
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 for tests/plugins
>
> -Bryan
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Alan Carroll <so...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> PR 2042 has a special plugin in it which is used only for performing tests. This is just the first of something that is going to occur repeatedly in the future. These plugins are not written to be general purpose but will be effectively custom built specifically for the test. We should decide now how we want that structured. Some options are
>> * Put them in example.* Put them in tests/plugins* Put them in the directory containing the test.
>> My personal preference is the second. I think these plugins are unlikely to be good example plugins and they certainly aren't production ready. On the other hand, having a single place to look for test plugins is in my view useful and better than scattering them in different sub directories under tests.
>
Re: Location for test plugins
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
+1 for tests/plugins as well.
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 for tests/plugins
>
> -Bryan
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Alan Carroll <so...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> PR 2042 has a special plugin in it which is used only for performing tests. This is just the first of something that is going to occur repeatedly in the future. These plugins are not written to be general purpose but will be effectively custom built specifically for the test. We should decide now how we want that structured. Some options are
>> * Put them in example.* Put them in tests/plugins* Put them in the directory containing the test.
>> My personal preference is the second. I think these plugins are unlikely to be good example plugins and they certainly aren't production ready. On the other hand, having a single place to look for test plugins is in my view useful and better than scattering them in different sub directories under tests.
>
Re: Location for test plugins
Posted by Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org>.
+1 for tests/plugins
-Bryan
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Alan Carroll <so...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> PR 2042 has a special plugin in it which is used only for performing tests. This is just the first of something that is going to occur repeatedly in the future. These plugins are not written to be general purpose but will be effectively custom built specifically for the test. We should decide now how we want that structured. Some options are
> * Put them in example.* Put them in tests/plugins* Put them in the directory containing the test.
> My personal preference is the second. I think these plugins are unlikely to be good example plugins and they certainly aren't production ready. On the other hand, having a single place to look for test plugins is in my view useful and better than scattering them in different sub directories under tests.