cjfields at illinois.edu
Thu Mar 3 19:19:30 UTC 2011
Like a smoke server, correct? The perl community is a bit spoiled in that regard, as we have CPAN Testers, but that is mainly for CPAN releases only; a versioned OBF smoke tester would be nice. There isn't a centralized OBF smoke server that I know of, however.
There is a buildbot instance being set up, but this is more akin to automated builds and test runs per code change, not sure if it can handle user-based test reports. Peter, know the progress on open-bio's buildbot?
On Mar 3, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Pjotr Prins wrote:
> Thanks Peter and Chris. I am glad we can learn from your experience.
> Toshiaki had a very cool idea today (on IRC). The implications
> carry beyond BioRuby gems.
> My wish is to see whether BioRuby and plugins are running well on
> different Ruby implementations, and operating systems.
> The reality is that developers won't test every possibility.
> On the other hand, users do ;)
> Also, for every plugin and BioRuby we create tests.
> Users can run those tests.
> So, what we need is a tool to report test results to some central DB
> If any user can simply run a test - say bioruby/test/test_any1.rb - we
> could ask them (or they can choose to do it themselves) and
> automatically update the DB centrally through a web service.
> biogem --report-test test/test_any1.rb
> Resulting in:
> BioRuby, test_any1.rb runs on ruby 1.9.2p136 (2010-12-25 revision 30365) [i686-linux]
> or, worse scenario, fail with trace ;)
> We could pass in more info (dependencies etc).
> Not too hard to implement, and a great resource for docs and feedback
> to users.
> This would be interesting to rubygems in general. Debian uses
> something similar for packages. What do you think? I don't think
> BioPerl or BioPython has that, correct?
> BioRuby Project - http://www.bioruby.org/
> BioRuby mailing list
> BioRuby at lists.open-bio.org
More information about the BioRuby