Re: [RFC 3/5] bb.tests.fetch_git: initial set of tests for git fetcher

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 12:51 +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On 13-12-18 12:43 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > +import unittest
> > > +from mock import Mock, patch
> > 
> > This is going to cause some headaches since we don't have Mock listed in
> > and of the prerequisite documentation, nor is it present in our prebuilt
> > tools tarball or do we have a recipe for it.
> > 
> > This is probably enough to block the patch until we can find someone to
> > look at fixing that :(
> 
> Ah, yeah, I see. It is a very useful testing library, but I could
> take a look at rolling my own alternative. Unless there's a way
> to make it acceptable for us with bitbake. Would creating a
> recipe for it be enough? Or just skip the tests if mock isn't
> available?

How about we check mock into the bitbake tree? Looking at
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/mock it seems we can get away with a 75kb
file from the tarball assuming I understand things correctly...

> > Would it be possible to separate out the tests from the other changes?
> 
> Yes. I was planning to do that after our discussions on IRC, but
> haven't gotten around to it yet. Will hopefully do that before
> going on vacation on friday.

Ok, thanks.

Cheers,

Richard