Test-kitchen support

[josephholsten]

To get ourselves a safety net, we need automated testing for this cookbook. Test-kitchen has the most momentum behind it today, and what it lacks in multi-node testing it mostly makes up for in tooling and support.

If we discover that we need multi-node support before it gets added to tk, we should consider chef-workflow.

[josephholsten]

I vaguely remember someone mentioning a preference to minitest over bats, but I only have experience with bats and couldn't find any examples of test-kitchen + minitest use. I'll happily convert to minitest if someone points me at an example.

[jamesonjlee]

I liked mini-test more because I was told it was able to introspect the node variables. Here is riak's minitest basho-labs/riak-chef-cookbook#66

a possible way to do multi-node setup with tk. Looks like it basically spins up all nodes and wait for everything to converge and then runs a (integration) test.
https://github.com/bryanwb/tk-demo

[josephholsten]

Awesome! I'll review and update the patch.

[josephholsten]

BTW: I'm using opscode's current recommendation of a provisioner-less base box along with the vagrant-omnibus to install chef before the converge phase. This makes it more identical to a standard bootstrap approach.

If we start having issues supporting legacy chef installs, it may make sense to have separate boxes for say chef-10 and chef-11 clients. But as the title of this PR implies, I'm just trying to get something minimal in place.

[jamesonjlee]

yes.

[josephholsten]

Oooh, I heard multi-node was in the works. Very nice.