Hi Miguel... guess, I don't see/understand the improvement here. thanks for your contributions though!
best, Raja > On Oct 1, 2015, at 6:38 PM, Miguel Ferreira <mferre...@schubergphilis.com> > wrote: > > Hi Raja, > > point is to avoid any conditional coding to run BVTs. the setup is simple > and takes all the tests under "integration/smoke" as is and runs thru > nosetests. > > As I said before, I do understand where you are coming from. I I’m guessing > that by now you also understand my point. > As you want to avoid adding a conditional to your setup, I too want to avoid > doing the same to the test. > > My 2cents, "skip" state is the right way to implement for this - most of the > test scripts are implemented like this - skip the test if some configuration > is missing or not available. However, as a part of the verification process, > You will have to look at "pass, skip, failed" test to make sure you are all > good with the Tests whether it is BVT or something else. > > You are absolutely right, skipping tests from within the test is not > abnormal, as it happens in some tests already. > However, I would argue there if we only stick to the current practices we > won’t improve. > There are many things being done that can be improved upon, and this seems to > me like one of them. > > Having nothing else to add to this thread I consider my contribution complete. > > Thanks for you efforts in running much needed tests. > > Cheers, > \ Miguel Ferreira > mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com> > >
