[Python-Dev] Rework nntlib?

Jesse Noller jnoller at gmail.com
Wed Sep 15 20:39:43 CEST 2010

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 02:02 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>And who do you get to maintain all the new tests and buildbots you
>>spawn from running hundreds of community projects unittests? How do
>>you know those tests are real, and actually work? You quickly outstrip
>>the ability of the core team to stay on top of it, and you run into
>>issues in the past akin to the community build bots project.
> This was something we were thinking about as part of the snakebite project.  I
> don't know if that's still alive though.  I would love to have *some* kind of
> health/QA metric show up next to packages on the Cheeseshop for example.

My GSOC student this past year worked on a testing backend for PyPI, I
think there's a want and strong desire for this, but a lack of
person-resources. Also, the onus has to be on the maintainers of the
package; not on core.

> It's also something I've been mulling over as part of QA for the large number
> of Python packages available in Debian/Ubuntu.  This was in the context of
> trying to judge the health of those packages for Python 2.7.
> At our last UDS I spoke to a number of people and thought that it actually
> wouldn't be infeasible to set up some kind of automated Hudson-based farm to
> run test suites for all the packages we make available.  I think all the basic
> pieces are there, it's mostly a matter of finding the time to put it all
> together.  I of course did not find the time :/ so it hasn't happened yet.

Yeah; we have a plethora of options - hudson, pony-build, buildbot,
pyti (http://bitbucket.org/mouad/pypi-testing-infrastructure-pyti) and
many more. We also have the isolation tools (such as virtualenv) and
awesome little utilities like tox (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/tox)
for doing all of this now.

Manpower and time prohibit it

> Of course, the set of platforms, Python versions, and packages we care about
> is much narrower than the full Python community, but it would still be an
> interesting exercise.

If we had an existing back end for this - say "python 2.6, 2.7, 3.1"
and package maintainers could use that infrastructure, on pypi, to run
their tests and we could see Green Dots (pass) for those packages, I
think it's a short jump from that, to having a "dev" section where we
can take tests that pass 3.1 and run it on a new experimental

If we know in advance that it passes on the old interpreter, we can at
least assume that we may have broken something.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list