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

Running tests for the metaparticle #75

Open
srini85 opened this issue Jan 22, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

Running tests for the metaparticle #75

srini85 opened this issue Jan 22, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@srini85
Copy link
Contributor

srini85 commented Jan 22, 2018

Thought of opening a new thread rather than expanding on #49

Assuming that the metaparticle is to have a set of tests associated with it, how should they be included? Should they be a seperate project that resides in a particular folder that gets run as part of the build command? Or should they be included along side the code?

Would be interesting to hear your thoughts @brendanburns and others

@brendandburns
Copy link
Contributor

Good question...

I assume that the desired flow would be:

  • Build
  • Test
  • Deploy

??

And if 'Test' fails, then 'Deploy' would not happen...

The easiest thing (of course) would be to simply shell out to a script, but that also kind of feels like cheating at some level...

Perhaps the executor or builder could have a Test() function, but in that case, there is a lot of per-language implementation and assumptions.

If you were to add this what would you think it should look like?

I'm definitely open to proposals here.

@srini85
Copy link
Contributor Author

srini85 commented Jan 22, 2018

@brendanburns - yeah I think there has to be some sort of interface that defines that a test runner to run prior to the Deploy in the sequence you mentioned.

You are right about per-language implementations so perhaps there needs to be a defined contract when developing metaparticle package for a particular language?

I have had an initial stab at how it could be done in dotnet
srini85#1

Still needs some work in terms of restructuring code, but hopefully you can see if from a high level and provide your thoughts?

@srini85
Copy link
Contributor Author

srini85 commented Jun 29, 2018

@brendandburns should this ticket still be open? We made a merge for adding tests. Something else we still want to discuss?

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants