----- "Will Woods" <wwoods(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 05:23 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> Personally the security risk of scripting language seems negligible
> to me and defining this stuff with config files seems
overcomplicated
> to me (and some parts would have to be left out completely).
I'm inclined to agree. Let's go with actual Python code, but try to
keep
it simple - so test authors don't have to depend on Super-Clever QA
Boffins like us just to get a test working (heh).
> 2. This new file seems to solve several of our issues at once, I
think
> it's quite neat (self-applause! booo!) :) But is also seems like a
> major architecture overhaul. Do we want to do it right now?
>
> I'll gladly volunteer, but first we must decide - do we want to
> concentrate purely on depcheck/other PUATP stuff right now and just
> add a quick dirty labels support (with plans of doing it properly
> in the future), or is this worth doing properly right now?
I like it, and I think it's worth doing this properly right now - I
think we had identified this as one of the prerequisites for the
depcheck/PUATP work anyway.
(Also, I think we have some time in the schedule to do foundation
work,
since Alpha isn't until September 21 or so.)
The thing I wonder about is this: if we're going to exec the
'control.autoqa' file as-is for each test, don't we risk having each
file stomp on the variables set by the previous one? It seems like
we'll
end up needing to maintain different environment/scope/namespace for
each file. So maybe we want to be able to import them as normal
python
modules, rather than manipulating the global/local namespace
ourselves?
Oh, that shouldn't be a problem (at least if I understand your concerns
properly), exec statement supports execution in a custom
(dictionary handled) namespace:
http://docs.python.org/reference/simple_stmts.html#the-exec-statement
I already use it in the provided patch (autoqa, line 106). So we can
have a new dictionary for every test we want to evaluate.
We already import the 'hook.py' for each hook, so there's some
precedent
there, but I'd be happy with whichever way you think is cleanest.
And thanks for volunteering - I'm looking forward to seeing how it
works!
I will try to provide some sample patch and we can fine-tune the details
then.
-w
_______________________________________________
autoqa-devel mailing list
autoqa-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel