Make(file) juju tests and unit test easier to discover?

[David Cheney]

Lets make it a hook, that sounds like the only way it can be
implemented without showing a bias towards any one solution.

On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Marco Ceppi <marco.ceppi at canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been toying with this idea for the past few days after seeing a
> Makefile in a charm. As we move closer to starting the audit on the charms
> in the charm store I'm trying to figure out best practices for the juju-test
> plugin to be able to run not only the integration tests but also unit tests
> that are starting to appear in more and more charms (LOVE THIS!)
>
> Originally, I figured unit tests would be included as a test file in the
> tests directory, eg:
>
> ```tests/01-unit-test
> #!/bin/bash
> set -eux
>
> sudo apt-get install python-nose
>
> CHARM_DIR=$(pwd) PYTHONPATH=$(pwd)/hooks nosetests -s $(pwd)/hooks/tests
> ```
>
> That way you could run the entire test suite, via `juju test`, or just the
> unit test with `juju test 01-unit-test`. However, I've noticed a lot more
> charms with Makefiles. I'd like to know if maybe utilizing existing
> conventions would be better. In this case `make test` would preform Unit
> Tests, if any, and `make functional` could run the juju-test functional
> tests.
>
> Thoughts on this? What should we recommend as a best practice - or even a
> policy? At the end of the day we'll need to know in order to make sure the
> charm testing infrastructure knows what to utilize.
>
> Thanks,
> Marco Ceppi
>
> --
> Juju mailing list
> Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
>