Re: [Fab-user] fabtest

[Jeff Forcier]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Mike Korobov <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I also found VirtualBox 4.0.0 and 4.0.2 buggy but with recent 4.0.4
> release stability seems to improve a lot.

Good to know, I appear to be using 4.0.2 atm.

> Snapshots taking doesn't
> work for me if VM is running in headless mode but in standard mode
> (when window pops up and closes) all was fine. This doesn't matter
> much because [...] restoring works fine for me even in
> headless mode.

Also good to know; Vagrant uses headless by default (not even sure if
there is an option for non-headless) but if restoration can be done in
that mode I might still check that out. Thanks for the info!

-Jeff


>
> 2011/2/22 Jeff Forcier <address@hidden>:
>> Hey Mike,
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Mike Korobov <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> I've recently released https://bitbucket.org/kmike/fabtest/ package.
>>> This package is for writing tests for Fabric scripts against
>>> VirtualBox VMs: before each test VM is rolled back to selected
>>> snapshot.
>>
>> That's neat! I haven't the time to try it out right now but I'm
>> curious as to how long your snapshot rollbacks take (1s, 10s, 60s
>> etc). I use Virtualbox right now (via Vagrant) but the snapshot
>> functionality was somewhat buggy for me so I've not used it much.
>> Instead I use Vagrant's package functionality (which is semi slow but
>> pretty stable) and/or focus on idempotent Fabric recipes.
>>
>>> Can please somebody review the code? Are there better ways to do this
>>> kind of things? Am I missing something in the implementation?
>>
>> For running Fabric's own tests, I wrote a somewhat hacky
>> Paramiko-driven fake SSH/SFTP server -- it's in the master branch in
>> tests/server.py (with to-be-merged improvements to the SFTP stuff in
>> put-get-overhaul). It works reasonably well for the existing test
>> suite, but needs more work to be generally useful for your use case, I
>> think. I have vague plans to clean it up and make it its own project
>> sometime.
>>
>> The greater discussion of "fake SSH server versus real SSH server" is
>> one I had a while ago and I'm reasonably happy with the route I took
>> for Fabric's test suite, but for "manual" testing of fabfile tasks (as
>> opposed to frequent runs of a large test suite) I think your approach
>> may have a lot of merit too. Again, I'll try to take a closer look in
>> a while.
>>
>> -Jeff
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Forcier
>> Unix sysadmin; Python/Ruby engineer
>> http://bitprophet.org
>>
>



-- 
Jeff Forcier
Unix sysadmin; Python/Ruby engineer
http://bitprophet.org