[[chef-dev]] Re: Nightly Opscode Chef RPMs and some questions

[Sergio Rubio < >]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2011, James <
 
 ">
 > wrote:
> Rubio,
> Nice work. 
> What I would really like to see is a 'testing' cookbook in place of 'yum', which would test every resource and provider.

Yeah, I guess we should stress the packages further. I'm currently investigating which test from the official tree we could reuse for this purpose. Any pointers to relevant docs?

Cheers.

> Could anyone explain to us the tests which go along with an official package build? Is it simply rake test? 
> Thanks,
> James
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Sergio Rubio <
 
 ">
 > wrote:
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> I've published the scripts I'm currently using to validate the build
>> in case anyone is interested:
>>
>> https://github.com/rubiojr/chef-rpms-builder/tree/master/test <https://github.com/rubiojr/chef-rpms-builder/tree/master/test>
>>
>> Rgds.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Sergio Rubio <
 
 ">
 > wrote:
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > Today I'll be releasing nightly RPMs from Chef master in an attempt to
>> > do some kind of CI/testing of the RBEL RPM packages. This will help me
>> > to anticipate changes/breakage and release packages in a couple of
>> > days (maybe even the same day) after the official Opscode Chef
>> > release.
>> >
>> > I've got the build/CI system in place and now I'm writing some tests
>> > to validate the build.
>> >
>> > I have a question related to the build:
>> >
>> > RPMs are time-stamped when they're built (i.e.
>> > rubygem-chef-0.10.2-3.20110725_1130.el6.noarch.rpm) but I haven't
>> > found a good way of time stamping chef gems other than modifying
>> > lib/*/version.rb in every chef module on the fly.
>> >
>> > Is there a better way of doing this kind of stuff?
>> >
>> > I'm thinking of appending git short commit string to the VERSION
>> > string or something like that, so I can validate the build is up2date
>> > and the version string appears in Chef webui.
>> >
>> > Feedback is greatly appreciated.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>
>