[RFC 0119] Formalize testing for nixpkgs packages (#119)

* Formalize tests for nixpkgs packages

* Update rfcs/0119-testing-conventions.md

Co-authored-by: Kevin Cox <[email protected]>

* Update rfcs/0119-testing-conventions.md

* Update rfcs/0119-testing-conventions.md

Co-authored-by: Anderson Torres <[email protected]>

* Update rfcs/0119-testing-conventions.md

Co-authored-by: Anderson Torres <[email protected]>

* Update rfcs/0119-testing-conventions.md

* Update rfcs/0119-testing-conventions.md

* Update rfcs/0119-testing-conventions.md

* Add shepherds

* Update RFC post 30th Apr meeting

* Update rfcs/0119-testing-conventions.md

* passthru.tests -> tests

* typo

* Update rfcs/0119-testing-conventions.md

Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <[email protected]>

Co-authored-by: Kevin Cox <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Anderson Torres <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Eelco Dolstra <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <[email protected]>

rfcs/0119-testing-conventions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+feature: Defined conventions around testing of official Nixpkgs packages.
+start-date: 2021-12-29
+author: Jonathan Ringer
+co-authors:
+shepherd-team: @Mic92 @Artturin @kevincox
+shepherd-leader: @Mic92
+related-issues:
+  - [RFC 0088 - Nixpkgs Breaking Change Policy](https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/88)
+---
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+When updating or modifying packages, several conventions for testing regressions
+have been adopted. However, these practices are not standard, and generally it's not well
+defined how each testing method should be implemented. It would be beneficial to have
+an unambiguous way to say that a given package, and all downstream dependencies, have
+had as many automated test ran possible. This will give a high degree of certainty that
+a given change is less likely to manifest regressions once introduced on a release
+channel.
+
+Another desire of this rfc is also to have a way for various review tools
+(e.g. ofborg, hydra, nixpkgs-review) to have a standard way to determine if a
+package has additional tests which can help verify its correctness.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+Breakages are a constant painpoint for nixpkgs. It is a very poor user experience to
+have a configuration broken because one or more packages fail to build. Often when
+these breakages occur, it is because the change had a large impact on the entirety
+of nixpkgs; and unless there's a dedicated hydra jobset for the pull request, it's
+infeasible to expect pull request authors to verify every package affected
+by a change they are proposing. However, it is feasible to specify packages that
+are very likely to be affected by changes in another package, and use this information
+to help mitigate regressions from appearing in release channels.
+
+# Detailed design
+[design]: #detailed-design
+
+Standardize `tests.<name>` (commonly set with the `passthru.tests.<name>` argument to `mkDerivation`) as a mechanism of 
+more expensive but automatic testing for nixpkgs. As well as encourage the usage of
+`checkPhase` or `installCheckPhase` when packaging within nixpkgs.
+
+Criteria for `tests.<name>`:
+- Running tests which include downstream dependencies.
+  - This avoids cyclic dependency issues for test suites.
+- Running lengthy or more resource expensive tests.
+  - There should be a priority on making package builds as short as possible.
+  - This reduces the amount of compute required for everyone reviewing, building, or iterating on packages.
+- Referencing downstream dependencies which are most likely to experience regressions.
+  - Most applicable to [RFC 0088 - Nixpkgs Breaking Change Policy](https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/88),
+as this will help define what breakages a pull request author should take ownership.
+- Running integration tests (E.g. nixosTests)
+  - Tests which have heavy usage or platform requirements should add the appropriate systemFeature
+    - E.g. `nixos-test` `kvm` `big-parallel`
+
+Usage for mkDerivation's `checkPhase`:
+- Quick "cheap" tests, which run units tests and maybe some addtional scenarios.
+- Since this contributes to the "build time" of a package, there should be some
+emphasis on ensuring this phase isn't bloated.
+
+Usage for mkDerivations `installCheckPhase`:
+- A quick trivial example (e.g. `<command> --help`) to demonstrate that one (or more)
+of the programs were linked correctly.
+- Assert behavior post installation (e.g. python's native extensions only get installed
+and are not present in a build directory)
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+None? This is opt-in behavior for package maintainers.
+
+# Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+Continue to use current ad-hoc conventions.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+How far should testing go?
+- What consistitutes that "enough testing" was done to a package before a change was merged?
+
+Hydra: How would this look for hydra adoption and hydraChecks?
+
+# Future work
+[future]: #future-work
+
+One problem with onboarding more tests to the current nixpkgs CI and processes is the increased
+need of compute, storage, and ram resources. Therefore, consideration of future work should
+take into consideration how much testing is feasible for a given change.
+
+Onboarding of CI tools to support testing paradigms:
+- nixpkgs-review
+  - Run `<package>.tests` on affected packages
+  - Allow for filtering based upon requiredSystemFeatures
+- ofborg
+  - Testing of `<package>.tests` is already done.
+
+Nixpkgs:
+- Add existing nixosTests to related packages
+- Update testing clause on PR template
+- Update contributing documentation