Feature #10707

Test only @doc scenarios for documentation branches

Added by bertagaz 2015-12-03 07:03:54 . Updated 2015-12-13 05:24:41 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Continuous Integration
Target version:
Tails_1.8
Start date:
2015-12-03
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
puppet-tails:feature/10707-run-doc-tests-on-doc-branches
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:
267

Description

As decided in Feature #10492, we don’t want to run the whole test suite on branches that only change the Tails documentation, but only scenarios that rely on the documentation shipped within Tails.

We need to adapt our wrapper to the test suite so that it runs only scenarios tagged as @doc for this branches.

Subtasks

Related issues

Related to Tails - Feature #10492: Decide if Jenkins should test our documentation branches Resolved 2015-11-05
Blocked by Tails - Feature #10706: Tag scenarios that rely on the shipped documentation Resolved 2015-12-03

History

#1 Updated by bertagaz 2015-12-03 07:04:19

  • blocked by Feature #10706: Tag scenarios that rely on the shipped documentation added

#2 Updated by bertagaz 2015-12-03 07:05:19

  • blocks #8668 added

#3 Updated by bertagaz 2015-12-03 07:14:03

  • related to Feature #10492: Decide if Jenkins should test our documentation branches added

#4 Updated by bertagaz 2015-12-03 07:20:56

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • Assignee set to intrigeri
  • % Done changed from 0 to 80
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA
  • Feature Branch set to puppet-tails:feature/10707-run-doc-tests-on-doc-branches

Implemented in the dedicated branch, please review.

#5 Updated by bertagaz 2015-12-03 07:26:48

Note that I’ve added *.po to the list of excludes in the diff to determine if the branch should test only @doc scenarios. We don’t want to run the whole test suite if there are changes in the po files only, so I added it by safety in case a branch has modification only in this files and the wiki.

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2015-12-05 10:05:14

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to bertagaz
  • Starter deleted (Yes)

Pushed some style improvements on top, and another change that makes me wonder what kind of testing the proposed branch had seen.

#7 Updated by bertagaz 2015-12-08 03:04:58

  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed

intrigeri wrote:
> Pushed some style improvements on top, and another change that makes me wonder what kind of testing the proposed branch had seen.

Nice! Pushed one leftover of your refactoring. I won’t merge it right now, because I think there’s a flaw in the logic: for base branches, the only_changes_doc function will always return true, as the diff will always be empty. Need to fix this first.

#8 Updated by bertagaz 2015-12-08 03:43:42

  • Assignee changed from bertagaz to intrigeri
  • QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA

Pushed two other commits: e5e2a3f fixes another leftover of your refactoring, and e99290b fix the logical bug mentionned in the previous note. Please review and merge if you feel is OK.

#9 Updated by intrigeri 2015-12-08 19:17:38

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to bertagaz
  • % Done changed from 80 to 90
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

Great! I’ll let you merge, deploy and check it works fine :)

#10 Updated by bertagaz 2015-12-10 06:45:41

  • Assignee changed from bertagaz to intrigeri
  • QA Check changed from Pass to Ready for QA

intrigeri wrote:
> Great! I’ll let you merge, deploy and check it works fine :)

Deployed after fixing a little bit the git diff syntax in commit 3e2eaf9. A first documentation branch has been tested, and a base branch is currently running. So far seems to work well. I’ll let you review this commit, and close this ticket if you’re happy with the result.

#11 Updated by intrigeri 2015-12-13 05:24:41

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • Assignee deleted (intrigeri)
  • % Done changed from 90 to 100
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

Looks good!