Re: Revisiting the migration path to Kyua

[Andreas Gustafsson <gson%gson.org@localhost>]

Julio Merino wrote:
> If we go with this proposal, we need to change Anita to decouple the
> enabling of Kyua in the base system by default with the selection of
> the tool used in your test machines.
> 
> I think it'd make sense to add a command-line flag to "anita test"
> to let the caller specify whether atf or kyua is to be used -- and
> to ignore MKKYUA altogether.

Would we not also want the ability to run both?  Will there be a
transition period when some tests are only in ATF and others are
only in Kyua?

Also, the command line flag approach is awkward for testing historical
versions, as you would have to manually figure out the appropriate
setting for the particular version you want to test.  It might be
better for anita to try running both ATF and Kyua, and for the
higher-level test harnesses that generate HTML reports to publish the
results from whichever one worked, or both.

> I think the changes should be easy.  Should I try to come up with a
> diff?

I can make the changes to anita once we have decided what they
should be.

But I'm afraid I still don't quite understand why this change in
transition strategy is needed.  The main problem I found with
turning on MKKYUA in the current setup was a dramatic increase in
disk space usage for the test results, and I don't think this change
will solve that problem but only postpone the growth until the
existing tests are migrated, so what problems will it solve?
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, gson%gson.org@localhost