Merge ~peppepetra/+git/makefile_spec:makefile_spec into ~peppepetra/+git/makefile_spec:master

Proposed by Giuseppe Petralia
Status: Needs review
Proposed branch: ~peppepetra/+git/makefile_spec:makefile_spec
Merge into: ~peppepetra/+git/makefile_spec:master
Diff against target: 581 lines (+510/-0)
9 files modified
.gitignore (+6/-0)
.jujuignore (+1/-0)
Makefile.non_reactive (+75/-0)
Makefile.operator (+78/-0)
Makefile.reactive (+80/-0)
tox.ini_unitpytest_funcpytest (+70/-0)
tox.ini_unitpytest_funczaza (+71/-0)
tox.ini_unitunittest_funcpytest (+64/-0)
tox.ini_unitunittest_funczaza (+65/-0)
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Paul Goins (community) Needs Fixing
Drew Freiberger (community) Needs Fixing
Giuseppe Petralia Pending
Review via email: mp+387599@code.staging.launchpad.net
To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Alvaro Uria (aluria) wrote :

I've reviewed this change partially. I'll finish later today.

Revision history for this message
Drew Freiberger (afreiberger) wrote :

Added comments per our discussion with Jeremy this morning.

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
Xav Paice (xavpaice) wrote :

Few comments on the exclusions, maybe using .builds rather than 'build', though if it's a regex it'll probably cover the exclusion as is.

I'd be keen to see the clean remove any pyc files from the entire tree, as these often find their way into builds when we're using cp to make them and that'll cause all manner of weird failures in production.

Revision history for this message
Giuseppe Petralia (peppepetra) wrote :

Reply inline

Revision history for this message
Drew Freiberger (afreiberger) wrote :

minor nit on build step cp command.

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
Paul Goins (vultaire) wrote :

There's some small diff comments for stuff that actually should be changed...

And then there's some larger comments to reflect recent discussion re: a few issues. I tried my best to represent the different points of view expressed.

Discussion desired, but be careful; this could easily devolve into bikeshedding. I'd like for opinions to be expressed, but ultimately we may just need a decision made for the sake of moving forward.

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
Chris Sanders (chris.sanders) wrote :

Be aware Openstack is not the only team we run infrastructure for anymore. K8s charms are increasingly common and they do not follow the Openstack naming conventions they use tox + pytest I believe with other test libraries. It's possible there is a convention from the Charmcraft team we could adopt?

I wouldn't put a lot of time/effort into trying to match every other team as long as we pick something and stick to it. There are several comments/discussions here that are kind of nitpicks and we should be mindful to not spend significant effort rearranging files with little benefit.

I don't want anyone to take that to mean 'leave it as it is' simply let's be mindful the amount of time we put into things based on the value they will bring.

Revision history for this message
Joe Guo (guoqiao) wrote :

some inline comments.

Revision history for this message
Paul Goins (vultaire) wrote :

Added a few comments re: the discussion.

Revision history for this message
Giuseppe Petralia (peppepetra) wrote :

Replied inline to comments

Revision history for this message
Giuseppe Petralia (peppepetra) wrote :

One comment inline

Revision history for this message
Paul Goins (vultaire) wrote :

More suggestions, re: "make clean" specifically. It likely affects all the Makefiles, but I just commented once.

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
Paul Goins (vultaire) :
Revision history for this message
Paul Goins (vultaire) :
Revision history for this message
Paul Goins (vultaire) wrote :

Found another bit which I think ought to be changed.

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
Paul Goins (vultaire) :
Revision history for this message
Alvaro Uria (aluria) wrote :

Overall, it lgtm. However, I've added a question about using "git clean" passing "-f" twice instead of once.

Revision history for this message
Paul Goins (vultaire) wrote :

I think this needs to be fixed; I encountered this on a charm which was being ported from nosetests to unittest discover.

review: Needs Fixing

There was an error fetching revisions from git servers. Please try again in a few minutes. If the problem persists, contact Launchpad support.

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches

to all changes: