[BioRuby] [Open-bio Board] Buildbot on testing.open-bio.org

[Pjotr Prins]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 11:36:11AM +0000, Peter Cock wrote:
> Does such a convention exist in Ruby for explicitly calling
> Ruby 1.8 or 1.9? We can just require the aliases ruby1.8
> and ruby1.9 as part of setting up a buildslave.

There is no convention. But I think it is fine to have this
convention for our purposes. Maybe we can use just ruby by default
too? If it is not in the path, just ignore.

> > Note1: all plugins should support 'rake test' - though now they don't.
> 
> Is it possible to test the plugins *without* installing them? i.e. an
> in-situ test? Or, can we control where they are installed (i.e. a temp
> folder) and test them from there?

The problem is that you need to fetch dependencies. This is automated
in gem install.

You could check out a git tree, but that is not linked to the actual
stuff people install. I favour the latter.

> The point is the buildslave may be running several tests at once,
> and while ideally it will be configured as a separate user account,
> we don't want it using anything outside the BuildSlave's folder
> (other than /tmp provided the usual precautions about name
> clashes are taken),

'gem install' will normally install in user space. What is the problem
there? Also, you can tell it to use any folder.

> > Note2: plugins require ruby 1.9.x - on Debian install ruby-1.9.1-dev
> >
> 
> Maybe we'd want three targets (per OS) then?:
> 
> BioRuby core only on Ruby 1.8.x
> BioRuby core only on Ruby 1.9.x
> BioRuby with plugins on Ruby 1.9.x

Personally I don't see BioRuby as separate. It is simply another
plugin (or gem). It is a nice one, since it is pure Ruby and has few
dependencies. I would say:

bio (the BioRuby gem) on ruby1.8
bio, and all plugins contained in bio-core, bio-core-ext on ruby1.9 and later

If it is too difficult - we can create a structure ourselves. No
worries.

Pj.