Use Sharness as our shell test framework, version 2

[chriscool]

This builds on the previous pull-request #201 (Use Sharness as our shell test framework).
This adds a Makefile and a script to aggregate the results from all the test scripts.

The first two commits are the same as in the previous pull-request #201, so no need to merge the previous if you merge this one.

[jbenet]

this (and also just make) will fail if there is no test-results directory. maybe:

    -rm -r test-results

[jbenet]

@chriscool thanks! Works great, as expected I get:

jbenet @ lorien : ~/go/src/github.com/jbenet/go-ipfs/test * chriscool-sharness2 % make
rm -r test-results
*** t0010-basic-commands.sh ***
ok 1 - current dir is writable
ok 2 - ipfs version succeeds
ok 3 - ipfs version output looks good
ok 4 - ipfs help succeeds
ok 5 - ipfs help output looks good
# passed all 5 test(s)
1..5
./test-aggregate-results.sh
fixed   0
success 5
failed  0
broken  0
total   5

Three points:

1. make will fail the first time (as flagged above).
2. Currently, running these tests requires an extra installation step. Go tools in general vendor everything (see Godeps directory). So let's do that with sharness too. https://github.com/mlafeldt/sharness#per-project-installation says we can just add sharness.sh, right?
3. The files include a copyright notice, but no license. Currently all code committed to the project bears the same license: MIT* -- I know it's common for every file to bear copyright notices but it gets messy with multiple edits. (the world still needs to catch up to accepting git commit histories instead of bare files!) Would you consider adding a note below the copyright line like so (or removing it if you don't care either way):

# Copyright (c) 2014 Christian Couder
# MIT Licensed; see the LICENSE file in this repository.

(* I've been pressed to switch from MIT to Apache 2 to protect us and ipfs users with the patent clause, and I'm still considering that. If that happens, everyone will receive a request to sign-off on the re-license.)

[jbenet]

Once this is in, the next step for #148 will be to list out a number of tests to perform.

[chriscool]

Ok with points 1 and 3. I will send a new PR soon.

About point 2, yeah I can just add sharness.sh (and aggregate-results.sh), but as it is GPLV2+, I thought that it was safer to install it separately. Now if you think it's safe, I am ok with adding it.

By the way about git commits, I was at a talk at LinuxCon NA last August and Bradley Kuhn said that it would be safer if the developers added a trailer like this:

License: MIT

at the end of each commit, even if they already add a Signed-off-by trailer like:

Signed-off-by: Christian Couder chriscool@tuxfamily.org

(Which is mandatory when you contribute to the Linux kernel or to Git see "Sign your work" in: https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/SubmittingPatches)

According to Bradley Kuhn, people refused to add a trailer "License: GPLv2" because it felt like a burden. But note that "git interpret-trailers" (that I developed) is now in Git's master branch and it makes it easier to automatically add whatever trailer you want at the end of each commit message.

So my opinion is that the world could soon accept git commit histories as the real thing :-)

[jbenet]

@chriscool About point 2, yeah I can just add sharness.sh (and aggregate-results.sh), but as it is GPLV2+, I thought that it was safer to install it separately. Now if you think it's safe, I am ok with adding it.

Ah yikes, yeah good catch. Let's not add it then.

added a trailer...Signed-off-by trailer

Yeah, I think this would be nice. I worry about adding the extra overhead on the contributors, but it's important to ensure proper OSS hygiene. Docker asks for Signed-off-by's as well: https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#sign-your-work Let's discuss more on this over here: #207

So my opinion is that the world could soon accept git commit histories as the real thing :-)

Ah, hopefully!

[jbenet]

@chriscool and, if you just push to your sharness2 branch, it should be updated here in this same PR.

[chriscool]

Thanks for merging this!
Now do you want to list out a number of tests to perform here or in issue #148?.

Note that it would be easier to add tests if ipfs can be run as a regular user (not just root) and if its config file location and mount directories can be configured.

I tried:

$ ipfs -c="some_directory/.go-ipfs" init

but it didn't work. I will have a look.

[jbenet]

I'll list out tests later tonight.

 Ipfs is meant to run as user. The config flag is --config, though it may be broken until commands refactor lands. The ENV var should work though:

    IPFS_DIR=foo/bar/.go-ipfs

—
Sent from Mailbox

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Christian Couder
notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks for merging this!
Now do you want to list out a number of tests to perform here or in issue #148?.
Note that it would be easier to add tests if ipfs can be run as a regular user (not just root) and if its config file location and mount directories can be configured.
I tried:
$ ipfs -c="some_directory/.go-ipfs" init

but it didn't work. I will have a look.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#204 (comment)