Skip to content
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

refactor: testing #91

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jjmaestro
Copy link
Contributor

Note

Stacked on top of #88

refactor: apt/tests

  • make apt/tests more readable by factoring out the parameters

  • add a "test suite macro" in each test file that group all of the unit tests in the file and prepends a "test suite prefix". IMHO this is better than using unittest.suite because we provide better naming than the automated _test<NUMBER> plus these better names are actual targets that can be executed one-by-one by name.

test: add a bullseye_nolock package to the tests

Add other nolock tests to exercise the package repos (the templates, etc).

@jjmaestro jjmaestro marked this pull request as ready for review September 19, 2024 18:00
See bazelbuild/bazel#20369

While working on refactoring, I kept hitting rebase conflicts due to
issues with the MODULE lock. I guess it's because the Bazel version in
e2e tests is much lower than the current one with the fix (7.2) but
still, I don't think it adds much to have the lock in e2e testing.
PR GoogleContainerTools#73 added the `_resolve` and this breaks the buildozer fix / autofix
It seemed like 75afff9 in GoogleContainerTools#47 added the new locks but as new files, that
is, the old ones were left behind.
Add support for MODULE.bazel to the lock script and avoid printing an
unnecessary (and annoying 😅) error when building in a "modern repo".
Add a `nolock` attribute to avoid getting annoying DEBUG messages for
repos that we explicitly want to run without a lock.
* make apt/tests more readable by factoring out the parameters

* add a "test suite macro" in each test file that group all of the unit
  tests in the file and prepends a "test suite prefix". IMHO this is
  better than using `unittest.suite` because we provide better naming
  than the automated `_test<NUMBER>` plus these better names are actual
  targets that can be executed one-by-one by name.
Add other nolock tests to exercise the package repos (the templates,
etc).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant