Forum: Ruby tinderbox 1.0.0 Released

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2007-01-31 12:45
(Received via mailing list)
tinderbox version 1.0.0 has been released!

http://seattlerb.rubyforge.org/tinderbox

== DESCRIPTION:

Tinderbox tests projects and tries to make them break by running them
on as
many different platforms as possible.

== FEATURES/PROBLEMS:

* Tests gems in a sandbox
* Submits gem test results to http://firebrigade.seattlerb.org
* Understands test/unit and RSpec

Changes:

== 1.0.0 / 2007-01-30

* Tests gems in a sandbox
* Submits results to Firebrigade
* Birthday!

http://seattlerb.rubyforge.org/tinderbox
David C. (Guest)
on 2007-01-31 23:14
(Received via mailing list)
On 1/31/07, Eric H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> == FEATURES/PROBLEMS:
>
> * Tests gems in a sandbox
> * Submits gem test results to http://firebrigade.seattlerb.org
> * Understands test/unit and RSpec

Sweeeeeeet! Thanks.

Question - Does tinderbox know which version of RSpec to run against?
I ask because RSpec is still evolving and I'd hate for someone's specs
to fail in tinderbox because of an RSpec version mis-match.

Thanks,
David
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2007-01-31 23:50
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 31, 2007, at 13:13, David C. wrote:
> Question - Does tinderbox know which version of RSpec to run against?
> I ask because RSpec is still evolving and I'd hate for someone's specs
> to fail in tinderbox because of an RSpec version mis-match.

Tinderbox tries the latest RSpec.  If your package require a
particular version of RSpec it needs to be marked as a dependency.
David C. (Guest)
on 2007-02-01 00:58
(Received via mailing list)
On 1/31/07, Eric H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2007, at 13:13, David C. wrote:
> > Question - Does tinderbox know which version of RSpec to run against?
> > I ask because RSpec is still evolving and I'd hate for someone's specs
> > to fail in tinderbox because of an RSpec version mis-match.
>
> Tinderbox tries the latest RSpec.  If your package require a
> particular version of RSpec it needs to be marked as a dependency.
>

Cool. Thanks again.

David
Tim P. (Guest)
on 2007-02-01 18:37
(Received via mailing list)
On 1/31/07, Eric H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> == FEATURES/PROBLEMS:
> * Submits results to Firebrigade
> * Birthday!
>

Does tinderbox have a set of self tests to ensure that the sandbox
environment is sane?

A few of my gems are failing on some targets because of file
permissions not being set properly -- i.e. I set a tmp directory to
0555 permissions and test to see if it is writeable; some targets
report the directory as being writeable :(

As a corallary, how do we contact the owner of a target to let them
know their tinderbox is not configured properly? There is no contact
information on the firebrigade site for target owners.

TwP
Jeremy H. (Guest)
on 2007-02-01 20:33
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 06:25:19PM +0900, Eric H. wrote:
> == FEATURES/PROBLEMS:
> * Submits results to Firebrigade
> * Birthday!

Not sure if this is a bug or not.  I was setting up my OpenBSD box as a
target and I had blown away my gem cache, but it appears that tinderbox
assumes that a cache of the sources gem will exist in the host_gem_dir.

Now I may have been foolish to blow away the gem cache, but I had the
same issue Bill Kleb did with the residue of the hoe debacle, so I
figured cleaning out the cache would be fine.

In any case, the only way I could get the source-*gem back in the cache
was to pull it out of the rubygems-0.9.1.tgz.

I have no idea if anyone else is going to have this issue or not, just
thought everyone should be aware of it.

In anycase, There's now an OpenBSD target up and running.

enjoy,

-jeremy
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2007-02-01 21:12
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 1, 2007, at 08:36, Tim P. wrote:
> On 1/31/07, Eric H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>> tinderbox version 1.0.0 has been released!
>
> Does tinderbox have a set of self tests to ensure that the sandbox
> environment is sane?
>
> A few of my gems are failing on some targets because of file
> permissions not being set properly -- i.e. I set a tmp directory to
> 0555 permissions and test to see if it is writeable; some targets
> report the directory as being writeable :(

Links?

> As a corallary, how do we contact the owner of a target to let them
> know their tinderbox is not configured properly? There is no contact
> information on the firebrigade site for target owners.

I need to throw in an email, but I'll probably keep it private.  You
can email me, and I can figure out if its a Tinderbox bug, or a
problem with the target's configuration.  If it is a problem with the
target, I can email them and straighten things out.

I went with a soft launch to find these things out, since I knew
there'd be things I missed (like testrb and --program-suffix).
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2007-02-01 21:15
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:32, Jeremy H. wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 06:25:19PM +0900, Eric H. wrote:
>> tinderbox version 1.0.0 has been released!
>
> Not sure if this is a bug or not.  I was setting up my OpenBSD box
> as a
> target and I had blown away my gem cache, but it appears that
> tinderbox
> assumes that a cache of the sources gem will exist in the
> host_gem_dir.

Ok, I'll add that to the Tinderbox sanity check.  I think blowing
away the cache/ directory is much rarer than the source_cache.

> I have no idea if anyone else is going to have this issue or not, just
> thought everyone should be aware of it.
>
> In anycase, There's now an OpenBSD target up and running.

Cool, thanks!
Jeremy H. (Guest)
on 2007-02-01 21:20
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 03:32:59AM +0900, Jeremy H. wrote:
> In anycase, There's now an OpenBSD target up and running.
>

Well, turns out running older hardware can be an issue, I've had to
adjust the Timeout configuration on my machine to allow some tests to
run to completion.

Now it appears I've reported at least one gem (my own keybox none the
less) as failing because of timeout issues.  But its really just my
hardware that is old and needed longer than 2 minutes to run.  I does
not appear that I can force a resubmission of tinderbox results to
firebrigade without a new version of the gem being made available.

Or am I missing someting obvious?

enjoy,

-jeremy
Tim P. (Guest)
on 2007-02-01 21:46
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/1/07, Eric H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > report the directory as being writeable :(
>
> Links?

Well, I'll have to link to the space between my ears :/

Turns out I was trying to delete a directory in my teardown when I
still had an open file in there. Poor test cleanup on my part.

> I went with a soft launch to find these things out, since I knew
> there'd be things I missed (like testrb and --program-suffix).

Yeah, testrb was the other problem I was seeing.

Again, many thanks and accolades for setting this up.

TwP
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2007-02-02 02:16
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 1, 2007, at 11:20, Jeremy H. wrote:
> not appear that I can force a resubmission of tinderbox results to
> firebrigade without a new version of the gem being made available.
>
> Or am I missing someting obvious?

The feature doesn't exist on purpose, I considered it, but didn't
know if I'd need it or not.

I've cleared out that build of keybox by hand.  If it becomes a
regular occurrence I may add a tool.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2007-09-26 01:01
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 31, 2007, at 13:48, Tim P. wrote:
>> >  1) Thank you; A most excellent contribution!
>>
>> Its the most depressing Ruby project I've ever written.
>
> OK, I'm curious about why this was so depressing.  Care to explain?
>
> Frankly, I think it is wonderful, and I'm incredibly grateful for its
> existence.  The only depressing thing is how little green there is in
> the overall pie chart view :(

Exactly this, too little green.

> perspective of firebrigade and tinderbox.
Tinderbox does a best-effort, but some gems fail tests even when run
with testrb.
Bil K. (Guest)
on 2007-09-26 01:02
(Received via mailing list)
Eric H. wrote:
>
> The pie chart makes me sad too, but for different reasons.

I can imagine, but the big visible chart (aka information
radiator) that you've created should help to remedy the
situation, no?

Now, we need the same thing for the Ruby language specification
tests against all the Ruby engines...

> If its in the gem index, tinderbox tries to test it.

Ah.  OK, because of #4, no mention on the "gem developers" page,
and not noticing the search box, I didn't see very many gems.

>>  4) What's with the "000 act aed asl ben" pagination headers/footers
>>     for the project listings?
>
> Encyclopedic pagination, so you know roughly where you're jumping too.

But it doesn't work?!

Thanks again for the wonderful BVC,
Tim P. (Guest)
on 2007-09-26 01:03
(Received via mailing list)
On 1/31/07, Eric H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> Its the most depressing Ruby project I've ever written.

OK, I'm curious about why this was so depressing.  Care to explain?

Frankly, I think it is wonderful, and I'm incredibly grateful for its
existence.  The only depressing thing is how little green there is in
the overall pie chart view :(

> If its in the gem index, tinderbox tries to test it.
> >     repeated dependencies?
>
> The Install is set for an overhaul in RubyGems 0.9.2.  It takes a
> recursive approach to installing dependencies, so may have these
> kinds of issues.
>

I now understand why you and Ryan were so adamant about having Hoe
included as a dependency in people's gems.  Makes sense from the
perspective of firebrigade and tinderbox.

Blessings,
TwP
pat eyler (Guest)
on 2007-09-26 01:04
(Received via mailing list)
On 1/31/07, Bil K. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Eric H. wrote:
> >
> > The pie chart makes me sad too, but for different reasons.
>
> I can imagine, but the big visible chart (aka information
> radiator) that you've created should help to remedy the
> situation, no?
>
> Now, we need the same thing for the Ruby language specification
> tests against all the Ruby engines...

Sadly, there's not (yet) a good set of specification tests for Ruby.
There are several that are getting there, and the writers of them
are starting to work together which will help a lot.

On the other hand, getting the a tinderbox running and reporting
for the various implmentations would be a good thing too.  There's
no spec like a big pile of running code.  ;^)
Ryan D. (Guest)
on 2007-09-26 01:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 31, 2007, at 3:10 AM, Bil K. wrote:

>  1) Thank you; A most excellent contribution!
>
>  2) A pie chart!?  Tufte would be sad.

HEY! I had to relearn trig to get that stupid thing made! It even has
unit tests and is pixel perfect!

>  3) How are projects selected to be tested?  I.e., do I submit mine,
>     are they automatically added?  (I'm too dense to find this info
>     on http://firebrigade.seattlerb.org or http://
> seattlerb.rubyforge.org/tinderbox/.)

All of them. Any and every gem submitted.

>  4) What's with the "000 act aed asl ben" pagination headers/footers
>     for the project listings?

Weird huh?

>  5) Probably been reported before and not related
>     to Tinderbox, but why doesn't Rubygems understand
>     repeated dependencies?

That looks like you still have a poisoned cache from December... The
pain and suffering continues, all thanks to one myopic developer.
Delete your personal and root's source_cache files and install again.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2007-09-26 01:06
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 31, 2007, at 03:10, Bil K. wrote:
> Eric H. wrote:
>> http://seattlerb.rubyforge.org/tinderbox
>> Tinderbox tests projects and tries to make them break by running
>> them on as
>> many different platforms as possible.
>
> Five things:
>
>  1) Thank you; A most excellent contribution!

Its the most depressing Ruby project I've ever written.

>  2) A pie chart!?  Tufte would be sad.

The pie chart makes me sad too, but for different reasons.

>  3) How are projects selected to be tested?  I.e., do I submit mine,
>     are they automatically added?  (I'm too dense to find this info
>     on http://firebrigade.seattlerb.org or http://
> seattlerb.rubyforge.org/tinderbox/.)

If its in the gem index, tinderbox tries to test it.

>  4) What's with the "000 act aed asl ben" pagination headers/footers
>     for the project listings?

Encyclopedic pagination, so you know roughly where you're jumping
too.  (But search is faster, and it kinda breaks down when you get to
the 'ruby*' projects.)

>  5) Probably been reported before and not related
>     to Tinderbox, but why doesn't Rubygems understand
>     repeated dependencies?

The Install is set for an overhaul in RubyGems 0.9.2.  It takes a
recursive approach to installing dependencies, so may have these
kinds of issues.
Bil K. (Guest)
on 2007-09-26 01:10
(Received via mailing list)
Eric H. wrote:
> http://seattlerb.rubyforge.org/tinderbox
>
> Tinderbox tests projects and tries to make them break by running them on as
> many different platforms as possible.

Five things:

  1) Thank you; A most excellent contribution!

  2) A pie chart!?  Tufte would be sad.

  3) How are projects selected to be tested?  I.e., do I submit mine,
     are they automatically added?  (I'm too dense to find this info
     on http://firebrigade.seattlerb.org or
http://seattlerb.rubyforge.org/tinderbox/.)

  4) What's with the "000 act aed asl ben" pagination headers/footers
     for the project listings?

  5) Probably been reported before and not related
     to Tinderbox, but why doesn't Rubygems understand
     repeated dependencies?

  $ sudo gem install tinderbox
  Need to update 34 gems from http://gems.rubyforge.org
  ..................................
  complete
  Install required dependency firebrigade_api? [Yn]  Y
  Install required dependency rc-rest? [Yn]
  Install required dependency hoe? [Yn]
  Install required dependency rubyforge? [Yn]
  Install required dependency rspec? [Yn]
  Install required dependency hoe? [Yn]
  Successfully installed tinderbox-1.0.0
  Successfully installed firebrigade_api-1.0.0
  Successfully installed rc-rest-2.1.0
  Successfully installed hoe-1.1.7
  Successfully installed rubyforge-0.4.0
  Successfully installed rspec-0.7.5.1
  Successfully installed hoe-1.1.7
  [..]

Later,
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2007-09-26 01:10
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 31, 2007, at 14:15, Bil K. wrote:
> Eric H. wrote:
>> The pie chart makes me sad too, but for different reasons.
>
> I can imagine, but the big visible chart (aka information
> radiator) that you've created should help to remedy the
> situation, no?

Hopefully.

> Now, we need the same thing for the Ruby language specification
> tests against all the Ruby engines...

I'm hoping for a JRuby in the list 'o targets soon.

> But it doesn't work?!
On the Projects page, yeah, wrong titles, right pages.  I haven't
bothered to fix it yet since it isn't sending me emails.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.