Skip to content

Conversation

dimaqq
Copy link
Contributor

@dimaqq dimaqq commented Oct 1, 2025

High level idea

Run the same series of Ops API calls in unit and integration tests.

  • Scaffolding
  • A set of test cases
  • Run each against Scenario
  • Run each against Juju (several versions) with Jubilant

This PR

  • Enough scaffolding to get Scenario to work
  • One sample test case
  • Scaffolding for Jubilant

@dimaqq dimaqq force-pushed the ci-add-secret-tests branch 2 times, most recently from 136817b to c7e97c3 Compare October 2, 2025 11:47
@dimaqq dimaqq force-pushed the ci-add-secret-tests branch from c7e97c3 to 3f918cb Compare October 3, 2025 00:31
@dimaqq dimaqq marked this pull request as ready for review October 3, 2025 08:12
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here I make the test charm a package, so that the charm class can be imported into Scenario tests without hacks.

It feels a bit ugly, but that's the best way I could come up with.

Copy link
Collaborator

@benhoyt benhoyt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Per voice discussion (and comments below), let's aim for a much simpler approach with static tests in their regular place. If in future we end up having a lot of duplication, we can figure out the best way to share the common code.

- 3.3/stable
- 3.4/stable
- 3.5/stable
- 3.6/stable
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you think we need to run the tests on all of these tracks?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Today, I'm aware of three version ranges that we must test:

  • pre-3.5 (possibly any between 3.1 and 3.4)
  • 3.5.5+
  • 3.6.0+

I'm thinking to test on a wider variety of Jujus until we've got good secrets API coverage.
At the point, individual tests and their caveats (e.g. juju_version > 3.3.7: assert foo) would allows us to select a more precise set of Juju versions.
WDYT?

@dimaqq
Copy link
Contributor Author

dimaqq commented Oct 7, 2025

Alternative PR: dimaqq#74

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.

2 participants