Re: Bits from the Security Team (for those that care about bits)
Michael Hanke wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:19:32AM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
>> Second, README.test are designed for human consumption, whereas a
>> standardisation of how to invoke the tests would allow for much more
>> automation. E.g. piuparts would not only be able to test that the
>> install succeeds, but the automated tests also work.
>
> Exactly. In the NeuroDebian team we started playing around with more
> comprehensive testing -- both regarding single packages, but also
> integration tests involving multiple packages. We started composing a
> SPEC for a testing framework, but we haven't gotten very far, yet. What
> we have is here
>
> http://neuro.debian.net/proj_debtest.html
Thanks for starting this project! I hope a lot of progress is made so that
it can be used for Wheezy.
This topic is something I've been slowly working but haven't had much time.
Other ideas:
* http://bugs.debian.org/512265
* Something I wrote the other day (related to the d-d-a email):
> A long term plan could be to push the creation of a framework so that it
> is easy to test things such as webapps (which may require an httpd) and
> other packages that are not very to setup (e.g. by providing a script that
> creates a basic virtual machine, installs the needed stuff and then
> control is handed over to the package-specific bits).
>
> Automated testing is something that we really ought to push.
And there's also the possibility of re-using the same test framework to
allow automated fuzzing (and easier fuzzing using custom environment, etc.)
Somehow related to DACA too.
Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net
Reply to: