C. Titus Brown
ctb at msu.edu
Fri Apr 10 10:48:27 PDT 2009
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 01:41:07PM -0400, Doug Philips wrote:
-> On or about Thursday, April 09, 2009, at 03:01PM, Jesse Noller indited:
-> >Let me also point out that I want something to start running tests
-> >which could run for a week+ - I have internal tests which could take
-> >14 days to run. I don't feel like maintaining a client/server
-> >connection for that long.
-> If the test dies after 30 minutes and you don't find out about it for 13+ more days?
-> There has to be a middle ground between a constant connection and a moon shot. Even moon shots steer along the way. :)
I'm sure you want to know: What Would Titus Do?
Well, I have some insight there... he would probably implement a simple
wrapper that used subprocess to run things & kept an eye on the process,
killing it if it got wedged etc. Reporting would be accomplished by
Then he would chase down the corner cases with an axe or a baseball bat,
depending on how he felt that day.
Seriously, there are very few unsolved problems in the kind of thing
that Jesse is talking about, merely the complexity of fitting them all
together and choosing the right tradeoffs. It's not a technology
problem -- it's a design problem.
p.s. Actually, what I would do is release the first iteration that
solved about 60-80% of people's problems, promote it wildly on this list
and through my blog, and then stop working on it. In about a year,
people would then start making really straightforward and obvious
suggestions to improve the thing, and I'd be forced to either integrate
their patches or give up on the package. Based on an n=2, that is what
C. Titus Brown, ctb at msu.edu
More information about the testing-in-python