summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorsteve <steve@mistfpga.net>2012-09-26 13:28:40 +0100
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2012-09-26 12:29:36 +0000
commit49b6190088974ed7b2f3fae59867aacb2eb15c52 (patch)
tree9ef559a6f933c04fd95841a2ba526c44163f798f
parentf57275f6358670fa4a2da968f5645349d6570933 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-49b6190088974ed7b2f3fae59867aacb2eb15c52.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-49b6190088974ed7b2f3fae59867aacb2eb15c52.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Testing Project
-rw-r--r--69/f20be27732cd463a1a767e0f364c191cc33561220
1 files changed, 220 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/69/f20be27732cd463a1a767e0f364c191cc33561 b/69/f20be27732cd463a1a767e0f364c191cc33561
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0761ccfbe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/69/f20be27732cd463a1a767e0f364c191cc33561
@@ -0,0 +1,220 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <steve@mistfpga.net>) id 1TGqkC-0008Fs-1h
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:29:36 +0000
+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of mistfpga.net
+ designates 208.91.199.220 as permitted sender)
+ client-ip=208.91.199.220; envelope-from=steve@mistfpga.net;
+ helo=us2.outbound.mailhostbox.com;
+Received: from us2.outbound.mailhostbox.com ([208.91.199.220])
+ by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ id 1TGqkA-0006Gb-NU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:29:36 +0000
+Received: from [10.10.10.55] (5ad2e75a.bb.sky.com [90.210.231.90])
+ (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
+ (No client certificate requested)
+ (Authenticated sender: steve@mistfpga.net)
+ by us2.outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D56B4699585;
+ Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:29:15 +0000 (GMT)
+Message-ID: <5062F4F8.6040504@mistfpga.net>
+Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:28:40 +0100
+From: steve <steve@mistfpga.net>
+User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
+ rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+To: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
+References: <5061F8CC.9070906@mistfpga.net>
+ <1348605677.2284.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>
+In-Reply-To: <1348605677.2284.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>
+X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
+X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 172.16.214.9
+X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
+ -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
+ sender-domain
+ -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
+ -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
+ author's domain
+ 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
+ not necessarily valid
+ -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
+X-Headers-End: 1TGqkA-0006Gb-NU
+Cc: Bitcoin Development List <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
+ Bill Hees <billhees@gmail.com>
+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Testing Project
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
+X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:29:36 -0000
+
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
+Hash: SHA1
+
+Hi Matt,
+
+Glad to have another ninja onboard :)
+
+On 25/09/2012 21:41, Matt Corallo wrote:
+> Although Jenkins may not be the best system, we already have
+> jenkins and pull-tester (which is a dumb python script I wrote to
+> test all incoming pull requests from github).
+
+I have never heard of jenkins before. I need to do some more digging.
+is this the right thing?
+
+https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Mantis+Plugin
+
+Mantis on the other hand, I know exceptionally well. I hate
+duplication of work/data unless absolutely necessary. I will check
+jenkins out (just out of interest what is it actually meant to do? the
+website implies framework, but not what its for)
+
+So, currently there are 4 potential places for bugs to be reported
+1 - jenkins (and unit tests)
+2 - git
+3 - mailing list
+4 - forum (bitcointalk...)
+5? - is there still the ability to add bugs via sourceforge?
+
+Adding to this doesnt make sense. Each one of these reporting methods
+is for a different thing. I am not seeking to replace these (or even
+unify them) I am looking for software that will take testcases and bug
+reports against them [and allow for test campaigns]. Mantis is so
+flexible and industry standard and if the jenkins plugin works... then
+we can keep things as they are until they fit into better places.
+
+The reason I am so behind mantis as the backbone is it works with more
+or less anything, and can easily modded to work with whatever people
+are most comfortable with - however it is exceptionally powerful and
+has had a constant stream of workflow improvements over the past few
+years.
+
+>
+> They both run the same set of scripts, namely those at
+> https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/test-scripts (its pretty basic right
+> now, but since it is on github, I was hoping someone would find
+> the inspiration to add to it).
+
+I will check it out. I wrote a very basic script that wikified the
+changelog, and linked to the changes and created wiki pages for the
+testcases. have you seen the stuff I put on bettermeans? bits keep
+vanishing then re appearing.
+
+This is the outline of the testing that I setup for 0.7
+
+https://secure.bettermeans.com/projects/4256/wiki
+
+>
+> I dont really care if we keep using jenkins, but I figure we might
+> as well keep all the tests in one place?
+
+Yes, I would love to unify all build testing and testcases into one
+place. I am still on the fence as to including unit tests into this.
+However I do see 3 distinct type of testcases
+1 - requirements based testcases (requirements based off the current
+block chain rules - these are edge cases and known interoperability
+issues)
+
+2 - Acceptance based testcases - these are testcases that should be
+run for every build. Check out the General Acceptance Tests in the
+wiki link for examples and testcases
+
+3 - Testcases for reference implementations of things (like multisig -
+i see these working like the /test folder when you install a new perl
+module)
+
+These three things alone are a massive task. and they still wont cover
+everything. I would like to get the workflow so that people can
+sponsor or donate to a specific campaign (eg a new feature is
+implemented, people want it tested so can donate just for that
+campaign [developing testcases, structure, requirements, etc])
+
+Once this is done, I will get to do some exciting stuff (like writing
+fuzzers, automation, etc) unfortunately I do not know python, only perl.
+
+>
+> Anyway, I'm all for more testing (I'm always complaining about how
+> we need more tests for stuff...).
+
+Nice, I love testing. I think we will get on :)
+
+And I would rather go for interoperability between testing rather than
+rewriting it all.
+
+Cheers,
+
+steve
+
+>
+> Matt
+>
+> On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 19:32 +0100, steve wrote:
+>> Hi All,
+>>
+>> After the failure to get any real testing done for the 0.7
+>> release (all of which is my fault) I have decided to rejig
+>> things.
+>>
+>> I am heavily into test driven development, and I have a strong
+>> background in requirements management, and automation.
+>>
+>> I want to leave bettermeans behind, maybe we might be able to
+>> keep the voting aspect of it, and link it into mantis.
+>>
+>> So, what I have been doing over the past few weeks is developing
+>> a rudimentary requirements set, basic requirement tracking, tests
+>> to prove/stress the requirements.
+>>
+>> The next most important thing is to get release/acceptance tests
+>> done - these primarily focus on new stuff doesnt break old (ie
+>> lose a wallet, etc) and needs no special requirements.
+>>
+>> To this end I have installed various opensource applications
+>> (mantis, salomeTMF, bugzilla, etc) and am currently evaluating
+>> the best workflow process.
+>>
+>> This was a much longer post, but decided against it. :)
+>>
+>> So, what I want to know is who wants to be a part helping me out
+>> with all this? I am finalising the workflow flow diagrams and
+>> they should be ready for inspection soon.
+>>
+>> Anyone interested in helping out/reviewing processes? even if it
+>> is just some encouragement, it is all greatly appreciated.
+>>
+>> Drop me an email if you want access to the current setup and help
+>> me review the different software for the bitcoin workflow
+>> process.
+>>
+>> cheers,
+>>
+>> steve
+>
+
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
+Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
+
+iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQYvT4AAoJEFvEB9dQFvtQlgkIAJX7JYel5RGmCsbptGdQrCnT
+BR42tUwTg1t/NRUJ6RA8/Ou8lzallztQquShpLn4mZdQpoalvETdtAwcPnQKnaZb
+M5inZE/IEq8WJM1y4YkHt3BLou4BJbjwncCNy1/jqcm6f2Oonrg7isVbDwY/7JlP
+y/epm7XELS7NU4vVubBwQCunwvtsuydXRzuI812LiLXNqpXFMHvG2m8a2RajXE0/
+xW4lOMy/hUFzEgYRQWCTAru4Ts2x3Xt26NaEUh/uKvHLwBZJ4xbdu3gpupiPb4sI
+bCHnVFOC7zoQKOAnfPkCMyvtyoqpzM9HW2+DWI51FoOz851Y2F36N3Fpk/2lii4=
+=W5xI
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+