-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
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
Add Dockerfile and fix vendor.conf #1
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Daniel Nephin <dnephin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Nephin <dnephin@gmail.com>
LGTM 🐝 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM 🐯 but I have a small question about the vendor.conf
content 👼
@@ -17,8 +17,9 @@ github.com/docker/libtrust 9cbd2a1374f46905c68a4eb3694a130610adc62a | |||
github.com/docker/notary v0.4.2 | |||
github.com/docker/swarmkit b19d028de0a6e9ca281afeb76cea2544b9edd839 | |||
github.com/flynn-archive/go-shlex 3f9db97f856818214da2e1057f8ad84803971cff | |||
github.com/golang/protobuf 8ee79997227bf9b34611aee7946ae64735e6fd93 | |||
github.com/go-check/check 4ed411733c5785b40214c70bce814c3a3a689609 https://github.com/cpuguy83/check.git |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this still required ? we don't use check
in the cli
tests right ?
Same goes for a few others (protobuf, etc..)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For now it is required. There is an import from docker/docker/pkg/testutil/cmd
because some people insisted that I support the matcher interface, which required that import.
pkg/testutil/
imports pkg/testutil/cmd
and this repo uses pkg/testutil
.
We can definitely fix this in two ways.
- remove the matcher from
pkg/testutil/cmd
, I don't think it's actually used much, we mostly doresult.Assert()
everywhere. Or we could move the matcher to another package. - split
pkg/testutil/
so that it doesn't have things for both integration testing and unit testing.
I think we should do both.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I haven't traced the other imports. I suspect it will be something similar where a util package is being used for too many different things.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do agree on both 👼 👍
Implemented docker stack logs (swarm + kube)
This makes a quick pass through our tests; Discard output/err ---------------------------------------------- Many tests were testing for error-conditions, but didn't discard output. This produced a lot of noise when running the tests, and made it hard to discover if there were actual failures, or if the output was expected. For example: === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments. See 'create --help'. Usage: create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags] Create a config from a file or STDIN Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments. See 'create --help'. Usage: create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags] Create a config from a file or STDIN Error: error creating config --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s) And after discarding output: === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s) Use sub-tests where possible ---------------------------------------------- Some tests were already set-up to use test-tables, and even had a usable name (or in some cases "error" to check for). Change them to actual sub- tests. Same test as above, but now with sub-tests and output discarded: === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01 === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s) --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments (0.00s) --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01 (0.00s) --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config (0.00s) PASS It's not perfect in all cases (in the above, there's duplicate "expected" errors, but Go conveniently adds "#1" for the duplicate). There's probably also various tests I missed that could still use the same changes applied; we can improve these in follow-ups. Set cmd.Args to prevent test-failures ---------------------------------------------- When running tests from my IDE, it compiles the tests before running, then executes the compiled binary to run the tests. Cobra doesn't like that, because in that situation `os.Args` is taken as argument for the command that's executed. The command that's tested now sees the test- flags as arguments (`-test.v -test.run ..`), which causes various tests to fail ("Command XYZ does not accept arguments"). # compile the tests: go test -c -o foo.test # execute the test: ./foo.test -test.v -test.run TestFoo === RUN TestFoo Error: "foo" accepts no arguments. The Cobra maintainers ran into the same situation, and for their own use have added a special case to ignore `os.Args` in these cases; https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L1078-L1083 args := c.args // Workaround FAIL with "go test -v" or "cobra.test -test.v", see #155 if c.args == nil && filepath.Base(os.Args[0]) != "cobra.test" { args = os.Args[1:] } Unfortunately, that exception is too specific (only checks for `cobra.test`), so doesn't automatically fix the issue for other test-binaries. They did provide a `cmd.SetArgs()` utility for this purpose https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L276-L280 // SetArgs sets arguments for the command. It is set to os.Args[1:] by default, if desired, can be overridden // particularly useful when testing. func (c *Command) SetArgs(a []string) { c.args = a } And the fix is to explicitly set the command's args to an empty slice to prevent Cobra from falling back to using `os.Args[1:]` as arguments. cmd := newSomeThingCommand() cmd.SetArgs([]string{}) Some tests already take this issue into account, and I updated some tests for this, but there's likely many other ones that can use the same treatment. Perhaps the Cobra maintainers would accept a contribution to make their condition less specific and to look for binaries ending with a `.test` suffix (which is what compiled binaries usually are named as). Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
This makes a quick pass through our tests; Discard output/err ---------------------------------------------- Many tests were testing for error-conditions, but didn't discard output. This produced a lot of noise when running the tests, and made it hard to discover if there were actual failures, or if the output was expected. For example: === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments. See 'create --help'. Usage: create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags] Create a config from a file or STDIN Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments. See 'create --help'. Usage: create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags] Create a config from a file or STDIN Error: error creating config --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s) And after discarding output: === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s) Use sub-tests where possible ---------------------------------------------- Some tests were already set-up to use test-tables, and even had a usable name (or in some cases "error" to check for). Change them to actual sub- tests. Same test as above, but now with sub-tests and output discarded: === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01 === RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s) --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments (0.00s) --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01 (0.00s) --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config (0.00s) PASS It's not perfect in all cases (in the above, there's duplicate "expected" errors, but Go conveniently adds "#1" for the duplicate). There's probably also various tests I missed that could still use the same changes applied; we can improve these in follow-ups. Set cmd.Args to prevent test-failures ---------------------------------------------- When running tests from my IDE, it compiles the tests before running, then executes the compiled binary to run the tests. Cobra doesn't like that, because in that situation `os.Args` is taken as argument for the command that's executed. The command that's tested now sees the test- flags as arguments (`-test.v -test.run ..`), which causes various tests to fail ("Command XYZ does not accept arguments"). # compile the tests: go test -c -o foo.test # execute the test: ./foo.test -test.v -test.run TestFoo === RUN TestFoo Error: "foo" accepts no arguments. The Cobra maintainers ran into the same situation, and for their own use have added a special case to ignore `os.Args` in these cases; https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L1078-L1083 args := c.args // Workaround FAIL with "go test -v" or "cobra.test -test.v", see #155 if c.args == nil && filepath.Base(os.Args[0]) != "cobra.test" { args = os.Args[1:] } Unfortunately, that exception is too specific (only checks for `cobra.test`), so doesn't automatically fix the issue for other test-binaries. They did provide a `cmd.SetArgs()` utility for this purpose https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L276-L280 // SetArgs sets arguments for the command. It is set to os.Args[1:] by default, if desired, can be overridden // particularly useful when testing. func (c *Command) SetArgs(a []string) { c.args = a } And the fix is to explicitly set the command's args to an empty slice to prevent Cobra from falling back to using `os.Args[1:]` as arguments. cmd := newSomeThingCommand() cmd.SetArgs([]string{}) Some tests already take this issue into account, and I updated some tests for this, but there's likely many other ones that can use the same treatment. Perhaps the Cobra maintainers would accept a contribution to make their condition less specific and to look for binaries ending with a `.test` suffix (which is what compiled binaries usually are named as). Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl> (cherry picked from commit ab23024) Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
These two repos are not used