Why does Pulp Smash exist? What are its goals, and what does it not do?
Pulp Smash should be usable in any environment that supports:
- one of the Python versions listed in
- the dependencies listed in
- a *nix-like shell,
- the XDG Base Directory Specification,
- and OpenSSH or a compatible clone.
In addition, we recommend that GNU Make or a compatible clone be available.
Pulp Smash is not concerned with provisioning systems. Users must bring their own systems.
Pulp Smash is highly destructive! You should not use Pulp Smash for testing if you care about the state of the target system. Pulp Smash makes it easy to do the following and more:
- Drop databases.
- Forcefully delete files from the filesystem.
- Stop and start system services.
Pulp Smash treats the system(s) under test as cattle, not pets. 
Contributions are encouraged. The easiest way to contribute is to submit a pull request on GitHub, but patches are welcome no matter how they arrive.
Please adhere to the following guidelines:
- Pull requests must pass the Travis CI continuous integration tests. You can
locally verify your changes before submitting a pull request by executing
- Each commit in a pull request must be atomic and address a single issue. Try
asking yourself: “can I revert this commit?” Knowing how to rewrite history
may help. In addition, please take the time to write a good commit
message. While not strictly
necessary, consider: commits are (nearly) immutable, and getting commit
messages right makes for a more pleasant review process, better release notes,
and easier use of tools like
- The pull request must not raise any other outstanding concerns. For example, do not author a commit that adds a 10MB binary blob without exceedingly good reason. As another example, do not add a test that makes dozens of concurrent requests to a public service such as docker hub.
In addition, code should adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the existing style in the code base. A consistent style makes it possible to focus on the substance of code, rather than its form.
Changes that meet the code standards will be reviewed by a Pulp Smash developer and are likely to be merged.
Though commits are accepted as-is, they are frequently accompanied by a follow-up commit in which the reviewer makes a variety of changes, ranging from simple typo corrections and formatting adjustments to whole-sale restructuring of tests. This can take quite a bit of effort and time. If you’d like to make the review process faster and have more assurance your changes are being accepted with little to no modifications, take the time to really make your changes shine: ensure your code is DRY, matches existing formatting conventions, is organized into easy-to-read blocks, has isolated unit test assertions, and so on.
Join the #pulp IRC channel on freenode if you have further questions.
The specific meaning of (issue) labels is as follows.
- Issue Type: Bug
- This label denotes an issue that describes a specific counter-productive behaviour. For example, an issue entitled “test X contains an incorrect assertion” is a great candidate for this label.
- Issue Type: Discussion
- This label denotes an issue that broadly discusses some topic. Feature requests should be given this label. If a discussion results in a specific and concrete plan of action, a new issue should be opened, where that issue outlines a specific solution and has a label of “Issue Type: Plan”.
- Issue Type: Plan
- This label denotes an issue that outlines a specific, concrete plan of action for improving Pulp Smash. This may include plans for new utilities or refactors of existing tests or other tools. Open-ended discussions (including feature requests) should go into issues labeled “Issue Type:Discussion.”
- Issue Type: Test Case
- This label indicates that an issue is asking for a test case to be automated. (Issues with this label are a special type of plan.)
- Pulp Version: 2
- This label indicates that an issue is specific to Pulp 2.
- Pulp Version: 3
- This label indicates that an issue is specific to Pulp 3.
|||Portable software cannot make assumptions about its environment. It
cannot reference |
|||An inaccessible project is a dead project. Labeling a project “open source” and licensing it under a suitable terms does not change that fact. People have better things to do than bang their head against a wall.|
|||The “pets vs cattle” analogy is widely attributed to Bill Baker of Microsoft.|