 in the wrong session before we get started just a quick unofficial and scientific survey who here has written a patch that's run on the test spot, who has ever had a problem with the patch that they run on the test spot, almost everybody, who has written a patch specifically for the test spot, who, who is a past or current maintainer of the testing infrastructure. I was going to say, if anyone raised their hand there, that was my exit strategy, so you'd better be careful. For those I haven't met before, my name is Jeremy Thorson, I am a Drupal Tobiist who's been using Drupal for about five years. My Drupal.org profile lists my job as a long tail developer, which is to say I represent the long tail of one-off freelancers and Tobiists who don't really use Drupal as a day job, but just do it because we enjoy it, right? So my day job is actually in network engineering and network architecture for a Canadian token company currently in Saskatchewan. The next line of my profile lists my job title as Drupal Test Spot Partiologist, which is to say I'm a maintainer of the test spots and do what I can to keep them running and when problems arise people come up and say, hey, I've got an issue in transit. The IRC bot on the Drupal Contribute channel lists me as Drupal Test Spot EMT, which is incorrect. I have a day job, so I'm seldom the first person I see winning a Drupal. For to think of it as more of the, I'll come in after the fact, do some double troubleshooting, do some map bug fixing, try and solve whatever the issue might be. So I've been maintaining the automated testing infrastructure for about 14 months now. I kind of fell into the role. When I started, I didn't have any particular affinity, interest or experience with automated testing. What I really wanted to do was list a module on Drupal.org. And that's how I found myself in the back of the project applications queue behind 449 other developers thinking there has really got to be a better way here. So being somewhat naive, I thought, we've got an automated testing infrastructure. Let's use it to automate these project reviews. And I'm going to challenge myself to make that happen. I said I was a little naive. I said, oh, how hard could it be to give myself four weeks and that was 16 months away? Fortunately for the community, when I set my mind to a task, I can get extremely stubborn and bullheaded and will not give up until it is done. So here I am. So in terms of an agenda for the session today, I'm going to talk a little bit about the problems that I ran into trying to get Kipper to do something different than what it was originally built for. So a little bit of discussion. Some of the issues I ran into there. Some of the issues that we run into as maintainers of the test body structure. And then I'm going to go in to introducing two projects called Conduit and Worker, which are proposing as something to deploy as the next generation of testing. So I'll do a little bit of history talk about where that came from. What are the bells and whistles? What does this platform give us that other that we don't have a current infrastructure? Time permitting. And I suspect because anyone who's seen any of my proposals know I'm not, brevity is not my strong point. So we may not have time, but I'll do a little bit of plug and walk through. It's in the slides if you want to look at it as far as what it takes to build new testing functionality on this proposed platform. So there's information there and there's a little bit, some very brief code samples inside. And from that, talk a little bit where we are now with deployment to the platform, with development to the platform and some of our next steps where we go from here. So I should point out, I listed this problem with Piffer, but it's a bit of a misnomer. Piffer itself was built to do one thing and it does it very well. It runs simple test cases. And for the most part, I know everyone's running into troubles with it, but for the number of test cases that runs and the number of patches that runs every day, it does its job. So when I say the problem with Piffer here, it's really the problems that I encountered trying to make Piffer do something else. Trying to extend this to be things that it wasn't originally designed for. The main issue from an architectural standpoint is Piffer was originally designed with this concept of environments. We want to be able to test on MySQL, we want to be able to test in Postgres, we want to be able to test in different versions of PHP. So this environment concept was built into the test bots in the existing version of the test bots. And then we turned around and said, well, we want to do one simple test, we want to do these quota reviews on the test bot. And we've got this environment functionality, let's use it. So instead of a, we have a MySQL environment and then we built a quota environment. It's not really the underlying environment that we're testing on, what we're doing is we're bastardizing this environment's feature and using it to run new testing functionality. It worked well, it did what we wanted to do. Where it runs into problems is that, let's say we now want to do an equal environment, or if you had me, we want to do some grammar parser, some code sniffer. Pretty soon we've got seven different testing functionalities that we want to run on this test bot. Now we turn around and decide we've got all those MySQL, we want to run them in Postgres. Now we've got 14 environments that we're running on the test bot. Now let's try and add PHP 5.4, it's the eight environments, so it doesn't scale very well. The main issue here is that if you want to run a test on a given project, there's no way of saying, I just want to run this test on this environment today and this other environment tomorrow. It's an all or nothing, so when you run a test, it runs through all of the environments that are helpful for that test. So as a result, as we scale up the number of environments, we delay how long it takes to test it. Because we will not get a result back for any of those tests until all of the environments have completed successfully. And on top of that, if any one of those environments has some sort of failure where it doesn't return a result, you don't get results for any of the environments. So it's a little bit of an architectural limitation that hinders us when we try to point new functions at all of this. From a maintainer perspective, we all have this issue of stability and bugs. So when a bug is found in a test or a test fails, you've got this issue, where is it? What's the cost? Is it the testing infrastructure? Is it the project that's under test? Is it a simple test inside of people 4? Is it just an user error? So from a maintainer perspective, it's very difficult to track down where are these issues coming from. Now, that's not something we're going to solve with a new platform. But I mentioned it here because the problems we ran into with Kiff and Kipper, which is the existing infrastructure, is that we caught all the local fruit. And what we're left with is the problems that were intermittent, random, and non-repeatable. I don't know how many of you know this, but when Drupal 8.4 head fails, and someone goes in there and clicks the retest button because we can't have broken head, that wipes out all the evidence of that test and that failure, and we don't have anything left to troubleshoot why that failure occurred. So it's a little bit of an issue there. And we've had a bit of a tendency lately to spectacular failures and test spot breaking failures. Probably the worst example being Drupal Undembr Sprint Day, where we turned up 10 test spots and by 9.30 in the morning, 8 of them weren't dead. Now, the main result of that was test spots running out of memory, we run the database inside of memory, we were crashing the database, Drupal's site would go offline, and would not be able to spin itself back up. Fortunately, thanks to Sun, Berder, that's supposed to have a couple others, they tracked down the cause of this in simple tests last month, and we no longer have that problem because they made my life back to blood. So from a maintainability perspective, the other issue we've got is this concern with dependability and the mist of change. So with the push to Drupal 7, Jimmy Berry or Bruma Tower, the author and architect of the existing system, had seen some of these limitations in the system and wanted to change, wanted to re-architect it. So he was busy in the midst of re-architecting the life system, moving from working one way to working another way, and was asked to stop touching things because as he was adjusting the architecture, he was affecting the ability for people to test patches and the D7 deadline was moved. So he was actually asked to step back and leave things alone for a while. We're sort of in the same situation right now where we've got Drupal 8, we're pushing towards Drupal 8, we've got feature fees coming up in December and now we want to develop a new testing environment, a little bit of a challenge there. So the current plan is we're going to leave the existing infrastructure in place, build this in parallel so we'll have the existing stable infrastructure for the push to Drupal 8, but still have a platform that would develop new features and new testing functionality. And I will spare you my little bit of this old box about the learning curve for maintainers making it hard for new people to come in, there's not a lot of turnover for new blood ever entering the test spot issue queue. The main reason for that is complexity, there's no real single view of the code, there's no one place people can look as it is, multiple projects, there are multiple repositories, and when you do get into it, you've got sort of a complicated execution flow through the PIP project, the PIP server project, the PIP client project, the PIP Drupal project. It is a complex beast. That also makes it very difficult to set up local testing environments. We were talking a little bit earlier here about wanting your own test spot environment. If you do want to set up a test spot for local testing, Randy Faye has done an excellent screen test, setting your own test spot for randyfaye.com. I definitely suggest people go look that out. A couple other comments about the existing infrastructure, there's a lack of flexibility which is not really PIPers fault, the PIPers built on project and project is built on this concept of releases, so everything is hard coded to release nodes right now, which means we have no testing for sandboxes or future branches or initiative branches, and that's that was really the main driver. We want to change this and that led us to start saying if we can't do it here easily, maybe it's time to look at the system. We've got hard coded test types, so we've got branched tests and patched tests, and it's hard coded that those are the keys of the array that's passed over to QADO. If I want to add a new test type, I have to adjust that array, I have to do new code on QADO, new code on the test spot, and new code on drupal.org, and we know it's really difficult to get new code for drupal.org. So we have to coordinate between all components of this architecture. And the other issue that affects flexibility is the entire system's written with correct database queries, and I'll touch on that a little bit later. So once again, we've got this high barrier of entry, which makes it difficult for new people to come in and help out with the platform. New maintainers have this very large learning curve they have to look at, and most may get about 10% up to that learning curve, and then give up and move off. And of course the test spots have a relatively low profile. So that's sort of the background of why we're looking at a new infrastructure here. The proposal that includes two projects, one called conduit and one called worker. The architecture of this system is the same as Piper in that we've got a scheduler or a trigger point on drupal.org. We've got a central dispatcher, which is the qa.drupal.org, and we've got a test spot or a worker that actually executes the testing and logic. So what this conduit worker project, where it came from, once again it was written by Boomba Tower, Billy Berry, who is the architect of the existing system. When he was told to back off from drupal 7, he went out and he said, well, let's do a ground up redesign, take into account all the current limitations of the current system, and let's do this again. This is his third iteration of this process, so he knew who better to know what those limitations were. So he went away, let the drupal 7 release cycle go and he went off on his own, and he built these two modules, and then released him as the core of his reviewdriven.com proposal last July. Now there's a little bit of backlash with the business model that was associated with that, but talking to him at Drupal and Denver, on Sprint Bay, he open sourced code to reviewdriven and released it to the community so that it's now available for us to run around and deploy what he built as the next generation of testing infrastructure for how it works. The conduit server, which is the equivalent of QADO in our current environment, hosts an abstract structure of nested groups and jobs. So there's these groups which loosely tie, loosely map across the drupal.org objects. So we've got project, it contains a repo group, it contains a branch group, it contains an issue group, it contains patch groups. So you've got this tree structure which sort of maps against the objects and at each level of that tree we can define different properties. So at the repository level we can define a property that is the git URL for the repository. Throughout this presentation I'll be talking about properties, it's probably important to know if you're talking about properties in the generic sense, not in object arrow property. It's a little unfortunate that that's the terminology we use because the properties actually is a bug structured array. So jobs at each level then inherit the properties of each, of that entire tree. So when you create a job at the bottom level of that tree, it inherits the properties from each of the groups above it. Now jobs can also override any of those, so it gives us some flexibility. We've got intelligent defaults in the tree, but the ability to override those properties for any individual group. Job types or new testing functionalities can then define their own properties and allow values and validation. So for example, Porter defines the review array of which review is now included. Now we don't want to hard code any assumptions in the system, so you know what we've got with Piper. So we've got this structured array or this structured abstract tree, but custom groups, custom trees, custom jobs, those are all individual groups. So that's just sort of the destruction on jupy.org that we also tried to map inside of GAIDL. Groups and jobs are separate, so groups can contain other groups or they can contain jobs. But I'll talk a little bit about job types, I'll give them the next slide. So within a group, in order to kick off a test with QADO, we create a job node. And the node type of that node is what defines the actual job type or the actual testing functionality that we want to implement. When you create a node on QADO, the code creates a queue item, puts it onto a Drupal queue, the Drupal 7's queuing mechanism, where it sits until a worker calls one periodically, pulls an item off the queue, and then executes the logic for that. So essentially, this is a job dispatcher system. It's a custom job dispatcher system, it's got a little more complexities, a lot of Drupal.org specifics, but at the root of it all, it's job dispatcher. So with this particular job dispatcher, a lot of people may say, well, why aren't we planning to use Jenkins, why don't we use Travis, and valid questions? Some of the things that Jimmy built into this system when he first did it give us, some objects that we couldn't do with the existing infrastructure. So the first main difference is the fact that jobs are nodes. The different jobs are a load in a database table buried somewhere deep underneath the database. So when we have a problem with the test, and we need to modify it or delete it, that's direct database manipulation on the node, which is not possible. So now with jobs as nodes, we get all the things that nodes bring us, we get revision support. So nodes have revisions, now jobs have revisions, revisions have history, jobs now have history. So we run a test, we retest it, we can go back to previous revision, see the results of that test, do our debugging, and understand what it is that may have caused the failure of the problem. We also get a user interface for cut operations, we get field API integration, use integration, services integration. So this is all stuff that was custom code in Piffer and Pift, now looking to leverage the core capabilities of Drupal 4 to simplify the volume of custom code that's in the previous image. The other big benefit with jobs as nodes, there's no need to understand the underlying DB structure in order to come in and build your testing functionality or to build or to help troubleshoot tests or work on tests. So that broken test cleanup, I no longer have to go into QADO and delete a local database, or in some cases actually go onto the database in Google.org and delete a role. And my request for SSH access to be able to do that has been outstanding for six months. The next thing is we've got services-based communication, Piffer and Pift, used XMLRPC, sort of bringing that up into the next generation here using services, exchanging JSON objects between QADO and the workers. The other thing services give us, that we don't have a concurrent infrastructure, is a versioned API. So now we can start enhancing the testing functionality, but not break back into the kind of building called the existing tests, which are sitting in issued views and on QADO, that people like to go back and click on the test area. We have stayed away from certain enhancements because it would break the building test of those existing tests. So we're better positioned for more future enhancements and third-party integration using quote-unquote standards. There's more modern methods. So the neighbors are sleeping waking up for this one. With this system, we have the ability of doing batch processing. So we can take a simple test job of 40,000 tests, break it up into smaller chunks, and simultaneously send those chunks out to multiple test spots and process that job in parallel. So this has the potential to greatly speed up some of our simple test testing. I say right now potential because this week we have 13 bots, normally we have four. We're going to have to scale up that side of the infrastructure in order to really truly take advantage of it, but just the ability to be able to batch those is huge. On top of that, those results that are coming back from that testing are returned on a per-chunk basis. So once the first 200 tests complete and the test spot responds back, there's a failure in those first 200 tests. You know as soon as that chunk's complete and there's no need to wait for the other 39,800 tests to complete. So that's a nice benefit. So I described how tests define this array of properties, again using the generic term, which can be overridden for individual jobs. We've got this group stretch or this nested group abstract tree structure which has intelligent defaults, but what we've done is removed any of the hard coded assumptions in what's being passed these jobs. Each property is itself an array. So when you tell a job, here is the get URL I want you to check out. We can now check out multiple get checkouts before running a test. When you tell the worker, here's the patch I want you to apply. We can now apply multiple patches before executing the single test test. We've also introduced a couple of generic properties. There's a set-up property and a build property. And what these are are the ability to arbitrarily run arbitrary command execution during the pre-build and post-build cycle. So if we have a patch that's going to move all of Drupal into the core directory, we don't have to create a 2.8 meg patch. We can do a pre-build step which is move all of Drupal into the core directory. So other things you can do with this, you can execute a W get, pull down some libraries or dependencies that you might have on a module, write your own script, include it via the patch, execute that so it really gives us full flexibility to do just about anything we want during the set-up cycle or after the build cycle before you pick up the single test. So another item here, the worker side of this, the test spot side of this, the job functionality, the worker functionality and the testing functionality is defined as Z tool plugins. So with Pift and Piffer, if you wanted to go figure out how a test spot work, you had to sort through the seven layers of directory structure, find the right file for the actual worker logic. Now, if you want to go do something on the coder worker plugin, it's plugin slash coder.in. If you can write a C tools plugin, you should be able to write new testing functionalities. All the logic for the workers contained within its own plugin. Now, it's a little bit of a simplification. There are a number of books required on the conduits that are here on your side because we need to define a node type for that job. We need to define the default properties, we need to define the validation logic, we need to find the field API structure and mapping of the results into the field API structure. But none of this is non-standard. So looking at fingers crossed, this should give us a little bit more, this should simplify the ability for someone come in out of the general community and contribute to the testing infrastructure with a new testing functionality or troubleshooting functionality. So we have custom logic, we have custom properties, we have build step command execution. We're really looking at a lot more than just testing here. I position this as more of a generic framework for drupal.org automation. With that in mind, we're doing things looking at how can we use this platform to patch conflict protection. When I upload a patch, let's have the automated testing infrastructure go out, find all other patches that apply to that scene and apply them one by one and detect, here's the ones that need re-rolls. Let's take it one step further. Let's then kick off another job that automatically rebases those patches or another job which will do automatic back ports of it. So Jimmy's been quite active in trying to figure out ways he can run different sets of git commands and do some of that rebasing. So exciting stuff. No, Jimmy unfortunately could not. So we're also looking at code quality security reviews. I've got a plug-in for the project application queue that goes in and validates your branched names and your tag names to make sure they comply with your coding standards. That may sound like a really simple thing, but if you ever spent like five minutes in the project application queue, you'd be amazed at how often our new code is built. So here we are. I'm supposed to wrap up and we'll have to learn about some kind of discussion about that. Really quickly, I'm going to throw up to how you build a new plug-in. There's a hook install you need to create your custom node type. If you look at the presentation online, you can actually click on the code and zoom in and look at the actual code from an example of what we've got. You've then got hook install fields, hook install instances to set up your field API for results display. You've got your default properties and validate. And then you've got hook hundred result, which is the mapping of the results that your custom SQL plug-in sent back to the field API entry is on. And then on Worker, you create SQL's plug-in with the actual logic. So those are the required steps. That's what it takes to create a new testing function. Some optional steps. We've got hooks for working with the queue items that have been put on the triple queue object. There's hooks for an init hook to help initialize some of your field API. So if you put placeholder values, like the twitch chunk, this result belongs to you. Initialization hook. We've got properties altars on a job and global basis. And some other hooks for executing other logic. Excuse me when a project is when a job is finished. So the existing plug-ins that we get out of the box with the review driven code is going to be released it. Onto it execute is our sample plug-in. Functionality-wise it just executes whatever command you pass it in your command key of that property. So it's a good simple project, a good one, to look at for developing your own testing function. And it's really intended as an example rather than something for actual use, because we also have a couple of good steps in there we can do this out of the box without. We've got conduit scan, which is a very simple module that simply goes into the checked out repository and tries to identify a list of all the test cases. It's really good for seven, and then broke it. Conduit plumber, and these are not my names, but initially in review driven there was this concept of you add conduit, which you can enter those through. You add conduit plumber, which one is the same test case, water analysis. But what conduit plumber is, is the same test case. It goes out and it executes. And then we've got conduit coder, which is a code, which is just the default coder module that we have to pepper. And lastly, conduit coverage, which gives you code coverage results for simple test runs out of the box with conduit. Some of the items that we're now looking at developing, and some of our future thoughts, I mentioned to get repo health check for validating your repository tags and branches. We've got to ensure that you're not using the master branch, so on and so forth. I mentioned patch auto rebasing, conflict detection, tomorrow I plan on spending an hour or two working with Pat from Clousey, and trying to get a code snipper working on this new platform. Secure code review, we could be looking for performance testing, Google PHP unit, we had to make the options a fairly endless. Again, all we need to do now is see tools, plugins that have the logic that we need, and make sure that we've got things like code snipper on the work instances. So, next steps, where are we and where are we going? We admit that I am a giant tease, because we are nowhere near different. We have a team, it says here of one and a half people working on this, that's a gross overestimation. Jimmy is dedicating his 20% time at Google to Drupal's automated testing infrastructure, which is fantastic. I mentioned earlier I've got a day job, so I've probably got about 5% of my time I put towards this, so together we're approaching about a third of a body, and we desperately could use some help working on this, or getting this deployed. I think it's fairly clear where the benefits are for this, but we want more people involved in it, so that we can actually make it more maintainable by the entire community, as opposed to one or two people who happen to fall into the roles like that. So we do have projects set up on Drupal.org, there's the conduit project and the workflow project, there's also conduit Drupal and worker Drupal, and where those came from is that with review driven, they have the generic functionality, generic framework, and one set of modules, and then the Drupal specific enhancements, and another. Admittedly that makes it very difficult for you to discover really point of view, and we do need to look at how do we really structure this project from ondrupal.org. So this is the default that we got it out of review driven. Uh, we also have our dev instances set up on Drupal.org. So we now have a conduit server that's running and two test spots on OSU OSL hardware. So we do have some development communities available developing stuff ready for us to work with it. That happened just before I went on vacation. I haven't actually got around to running a test on that unit structure, but we do have it now there for capital conference. It's a little difficult in that the OSU OSL hardware, there's all sorts of, jumps to all sorts of groups and when you get access to it, just giving the nature of their environment very, very good. It is possible to get in on the kind of things. And there's someone who wasn't out too late last night, who might have caught on that I had three items on that slide, a scheduler dispatcher and worker, and I only talked about the dispatcher and worker. We're at the architecture design stage of our Drupal.org integration. Trying to figure out how best to architect this and integrate with Drupal.org. We're looking for use cases, one of the other automation use cases that we can use and some UI mockups and designs. How can we build a user interface for triggering a new test type on Drupal.org? So with that Drupal.org integration, the stuff we need is results display. We want to do something similar to today, where you can get summarized results in Drupal.org, detailed results on UI-DO servers. These are interfaces I mentioned, new use cases. And we're looking at how do we manage the communication between Drupal.org and the UI-DO server. So to kick off a test, we know we need to create a node on UI-DO. But in the existing infrastructure, we've got this issue where we've got a number of database tables are duplicated in Drupal.org and UI-DO. So our test table, for example, that lists all the tests. And so anytime you've got that data duplication, you have to keep things in sync. And when things get out of sync, between those two databases on two different servers, tests start acting really, really weird. And do things like execute a test for 20 minutes, then decide they don't want to execute again and queuing it back up to themselves in perpetuity. So we want to avoid that data duplication. And one of the things we're looking at, which is little abstract and kind of sky right now, is some concept of a custom entity controller for the mode entities and then relation and entity reference or something to tie that root structure to the Drupal.org project so it includes an object on the main site. And I mentioned we need to finalize our Drupal.org structure. We do multiple projects, we do a single repository. How do we make this more maintainable for the community? And of course, I'd like you to take this a few times today. We need a few bucks. So that's the presentation portion. We'll get into that open the floor for questions here in a second. Before we do, if you don't get a question in here, feel free to find me. I'll stick around here for lunch after the conference, find me on IRC as Jay Thorson. Email me via my VEO contact page or send me a note up on Twitter, message me at Twitter. My contact information is there. And one last host clean thing I have to give a shout out to SleepyRobot13 who is an artist based out of Ohio in the States. That is where I got all of these little robot clay figurine pictures. And coming from a family of photographers, I could give it a credit. So she did give me permission to use these images. Unfortunately, it's not extended to anyone else, but given an email, she'll be glad to release them in a piece in 44. And also the customers will make sure you promote a session of valuations for the products organizers who love it. And I would love to know that. So please do that. And with that, we can get people. Yeah, please use the link. So my question is, can we test the people? Yes. With the VCS property, we support Drupal.org URLs, but we also support GitHub URLs. So we can do our own projects. You need some way of creating an old MQADO in order to kick off the test. But we have services, we have services to do that. And that version API helps us for third-party integration. So we're setting it up for third-party integration in non-Drupal.org use, and review driven itself, and built as a project 100% for your custom use. It supported Drupal, but it supported your own projects as well. And that was the business model that we were building for. It was really an infrastructure as a service for our agents. So we do have technical support for that. How much of that we can build into our Drupal.org integration? I was wondering, and I apologize I missed this in your slide, but you could comment on the potential for testing for sandboxes. I know the security teams had concerns in the past about having testing for sandboxes, but for some situations like sandboxes of core that have, for example, modules that might move the core in them, it would be very helpful to be able to run a full automated testing for Drupal in a sandbox, without having to make it a project in Drupal.org. The existing infrastructure, as I meant, everything is keyed to a release node ID. In order to get Drupal.org to trigger a test over on QA infrastructure, you pass the node ID of the release to QADO. This does not work if you do not have a release, and the security team will not allow releases on sandboxes, so the current infrastructure doesn't support that. With the new infrastructure, the way you tell it to do a checkout is you pass it to the actual repository URL. So, again, that can be a Drupal.org URL, it can be a sandbox, it can be a feature branch, it can be a GitHub URL, it can be other, there's, we'll have them off the top, I think it's urgency, yes, Git, and the other VCS types as well, so there's support for performing. But yeah, full support for sandboxes, full support for each branch, full support for initiative-type projects. So far, the testing system is doing no thing, so it's alias for that. The node necessarily fails, but... So, the default builds that came with Conduit Bodder did come back with three levels, opposed to just the binary pass-fail. The worker logic is completely buggable. The results display and what that worker logic passes back to the Conduit node is completely buggable. So, for example, Git repo check that I mentioned, it sends back any issue, if it finds an issue in that you've got branch names that you're not going to use, but a packaging script, if that's a minor issue, it might get feature branch. We'll just flag it by the way, if you want this branch name in some ways. If you have no branch names that can be used by the packaging script, well, that's a critical amount, so we flag that as a critical arm and pass back mine, and then those get wrapped up into the summary message which is passed off the git.org display to the user on whatever display you take. So, we don't really have, because we do base it on, here's a directory, there isn't some, there isn't enough to clean up any games that might have started running, but what we could potentially do is build a dedicated test spot that does have that daemon running or can start it. Yeah, as long as it can use services to pull an item off a queue, you can build a custom queue for those types of tests and make sure it's only pulling from those tests. Is some potential people will be there, but we don't have it out of the box for daemons. The question does remind me of another thing that I did not mention is on the worker itself, there is a daemon that runs in the background testing its own sound, so that when jobs fail, it detects that it's failed, it sends a fail result, and then cleans up after itself and then sets the environment. That's something you don't have in turn test spots and it causes no one to fail, also that reminder. So with that, please fill in the session evaluation and hopefully I've created a little bit of excitement about some of the features this can do and encouraged a couple of people that on those days when you're working in V8 core and you're just getting fed up and you need a little break, more than happy to welcome you over to the testing infrastructure. Thank you very much for your time and attention this morning and hope to see some of you in the future.