== Summary ==
-This specification describes DebTest framework consisting of
-conventions and tools that would allow Debian to distribute test
-batteries developed by upstream or Debian developers. DebTest will
-enable an extensive testing of a deployed Debian system or a
-particular software of interest in a uniform fashion.
+This specification describes DebTest -- a framework with conventions and tools
+that allow Debian to distribute test batteries developed by upstream or Debian
+developers. DebTest aims to enable developers and users to perform extensive
+testing of a deployed Debian system or a particular software of interest in a
+uniform fashion.
== Rationale ==
Ideally software packaged for Debian comes with an exhaustive test suite that
-can be used to determine whether this software works as expected on the Debian
-platform. However, especially for complex software, these test suites are often
-resource hungry (CPU time, memory, diskspace, network bandwidth) and cannot be
-ran at package build time by buildds. Consequently, test suites are typically
-utilized manually only by the respective packager on a particular machine, before
-uploading a new version to the archive.
-
-However, Debian is an integrated system and packaged software typically
-relies on functionality provided by other Debian packages (e.g. shared
-libraries) instead of shipping duplicates with different versions in every
-package -- for many good reasons. Unfortunately, there is also a downside to
-this: Debian packages often use versions of 3rd-party tools different from
-those tested by upstream, and moreover, the actual versions of dependencies
-might change frequently between subsequent uploads of a dependent package. Currently
+can be used to determine whether this particular software works as expected on
+the Debian platform. However, especially for complex software, these test
+suites are often resource hungry (CPU time, memory, disk space, network
+bandwidth) and cannot be ran at package build time by buildds. Consequently,
+test suites are typically utilized manually and only by the respective packager
+on a particular machine, before uploading a new version to the archive.
+
+However, Debian is an integrated system and packaged software typically relies
+on functionality provided by other Debian packages (e.g. shared libraries)
+instead of shipping duplicates with different versions in every package -- for
+many good reasons. Unfortunately, there is also a downside to this: Debian
+packages often use versions of 3rd-party tools that are different from those
+tested by upstream, and moreover, the actual versions of dependencies might
+change frequently between subsequent uploads of a dependent package. Currently
a change in a dependency that introduces an incompatibility cannot be detected
-reliably even if upstream provides a test suite that would have caught
-the breakage. Therefore integration testing heavily relies on users to detect
-incorrect functioning and file bug reports. Although there are archive-wide
-QA efforts (e.g. constantly rebuilding all packages) these tests can only
-detect API/ABI breakage or functionality tested during build-time checks --
-they are not exhaustive for the aforementioned reasons.
+reliably even if upstream provides a test suite that would have caught the
+breakage. Therefore integration testing heavily relies on users to detect
+incorrect functioning and file bug reports. Although there are archive-wide QA
+efforts (e.g. constantly rebuilding all packages) these tests can only detect
+API/ABI breakage or functionality tested during build-time checks -- they are
+not exhaustive for the aforementioned reasons.
This is a proposal to, first of all, package upstream test suites in a way that
they can be used to run expensive archive-wide QA tests. However, this is also
-a proposal to establish means to test interactions between software from multiple
-Debian packages to provide more thorough continued integration and regression testing
-for the Debian systems.
+a proposal to establish means to test interactions between software from
+multiple Debian packages to provide more thorough continued integration and
+regression testing for the Debian systems.
== Use Cases ==
This includes the test suite of the authors of his favorite software, but
also all distribution test suites provided by Debian developers (see above).
+ * Sylvestre maintains a core computational library in Debian.
+ A new version (or other modification) of this library promises performance
+ advantages. Using DebTest he could not only verify the absence of
+ regressions but also to obtain direct performance comparison
+ against the previous version across a range of applications.
+
* Joerg maintains a repository of backports of Debian packages to be
installed in a stable environment. He wants to assure that
backporting of the packages has not caused a deviation in their
the stability and function as promised within the stable
environment.
- * Mark creates a Debian-derived distribution and wants to acquire a
- large userbase by promising a correctly functioning user-friendly
- environment. Unfortunately he has no resources to provide adequate
- testing of all the packages through the lifetime of his
- derivative. With DebTest he acquires automated assurance that the
- "cut" of Debian distribution he relies upon is functioning
- correctly alongside with his additions to the distribution.
+ * Mark wants to create a Debian-derived distribution and needs to
+ modify a number of essential packages in order to achieve the desired
+ improvements. He hopes that these changes do not break other Debian
+ packages, but he is not really sure. A comprehensive test battery for the
+ whole Debian system would offer him a way to verify proper functioning
+ of his modified snapshot of Debian -- without having to manually replicate
+ the testing efforts done by thousands of Debian contributors.
+
+ * Linus is an upstream developer. He just loves the fact that he can tell any
+ of his Debian-based users to just 'apt-get install' something and send him
+ the output of a debtest command, whenever they claim that his software
+ doesn't work properly. It pleases him to see his carefully developed test
+ suite to be conveniently accessible for users.
* Finally, Lucas has access to a powerful computing facility and
likes to run all kinds of tests on all packages in the Debian archive.
- A Debian-wide regression test framework would allow Lucas to execute
+ A Debian-wide regression test framework would allow Lucas to execute
complex test collections (suites for individual packages,
interoperability tests, or comparative) in an automated fashion,
and file bug reports against the respective packages whenever a
- malfunction is detected.
+ malfunction is detected. Some of Lucas friends are not brave enough to file
+ bugs, but still want to contribute. They simply run (selected) tests
+ on their local machines that in turn report results/logs to a Debian
+ dashboard server, where interested parties can get a weather report of
+ Debian's status.
== Scope ==
Specific issues related to particular sections are described further below.
+
+=== Core components ===
+
+ * Organization of the framework
+ - packages might register ways to run basic tests against installed
+ versions
+ register:
+ - executable?
+
+
+==== Packaged tests ====
+
+ * Metainformation:
+ * duration: ....
+ * resources:
+ * suites:
+
+ * Debug symbols: ....
+ * do not strip symbols from test binary
+
+ * Packages that register tests might provide a virtual package
+ 'test-<packagename>' to allow easy test discovery and retrival via
+ debtest tools.
+
+
+==== debtest tools ====
+
+ * Invocation::
+ * single package tests
+ * all (with -f to force even if resources are not sufficient)
+ * tests of dependent packages (discovered via rdepends,
+ "rrecommends" and "rsuggests")
+ * given specific resources demands, just run
+ the ones matching those
+ * Customization/Output::
+ plugins::
+ * job resources requirement adjustments
+ . manual customization
+ . request from dashboard for the system (or alike)
+ * executioners
+ . local execution (monitor resources)
+ . submit to cluster/cloud
+ * output/reports
+ . some structured output
+ . interfaces to dashboards
+
+
+==== Maintainer helpers ====
+
+ Helpers:
+ - assess resources/performance:
+
+
+=== Supplementary infrastructure ===
+
+==== Dashboard server ====
+
=== Implementation Plan ===
This section is usually broken down into subsections, such as the packages
The implementation is very dependent on the type of feature to be implemented.
Refer to the team leader for further suggestions and guidance on this topic.
- * Organization of the framework
- - packages might register ways to run basic tests against installed
- versions
- register:
- - executable?
-
- * Metainformation:
- - duration: ....
- - resources:
- - suites:
-
- Helpers:
- - assess resources/performance:
-
- * Invocation:
- - single package tests
- - all (with -f to force even if resources are not sufficient)
- - given specific resources demands, just run
- the ones matching those
-
- * Customization/Output:
- - plugins
- + output: some structured output
- + interface to some dashboard
-
- * Debug symbols: ....
- - do not strip symbols from test binary
- -
-
* Implementation language:
- Python unless someone takes the burden to develop
and maintain for upcoming years.
projects / neurodebian.git / blobdiff