I have a concrete proposal that we can start with. It's not a final set of markers we might want to have but one that we can start with and make an immediate use of.
I would like to adapt our tests to be immediately usable in Breeze (and tied with it) and follow this approach: *Proposed Breeze changes:* - `./breeze` by default will start only the main 'airflow-testing' image. This way no huge resource usage will be needed when breeze is started by default - './breeze --all-integrations` will start all dependent images (so we will be able to run all tests) - './breeze --integrations [kubernetes,cassandra,mongo, rabbitmq,redis,openldap,kerberos] - you will be able to choose which integrations you want to start - When you run `breeze --backend postgres` it will only start postgres not mysql and the other way round. *Proposed Pytest marks:* - pytest.mark.integrations('kubernetes'),pytest.mark.integrations('cassandra'),..... - pytest,mark.backends("postgres"), pytest,mark.backends("mysql"), pytest.mark.backends("sqlite") It's very easy to add custom switches to pytest and auto-detect what is the default setting based on environment variables for example. We could follow https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/example/markers.html#custom-marker-and-command-line-option-to-control-test-runs . *Proposed Pytest behaviour:* - `pytest` -> in Breeze will run all tests that are applicable within the current environment: - it will only run non-marked tests by default, applicable with current selected backend - when (for example) you stared cassandra is added it will additionally run pytest.mark.integrations('cassandra') - `pytest` in local environment by default will only run non-marked tests - `pytest --integrations [kubernetes, ....]` will only run the integration tests selected (will convert the switch into the corresponding markers (as explained in the example above) - `pytest --backends [postgres| mysql | sqlite] will only run the specific tests that use postgres/mysql/sqlite specific tests *What we will achieve by that:* - lower resource usage by Breeze by default (while allowing to run most of the tests) - easy selection of integration(s) we want to test - easy way to run all tests to reproduce CI run - capability of running just 'pytest' and testing (as fast as possible) all the tests that are applicable in your environment (if you want to be extra-sure everything works - for example during refactoring) - in the future we might be able to optimise CI and run smaller set of tests for postgres/mysql/sqlite 'only' cases - optimising the time for CI builds. If I will get a general "OK" from community for that - I can make a set of incremental changes to breeze (as I continue working on prod image) and add those capabilities to Breeze. J. On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:10 AM Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com> wrote: > It is worth adding that we currently use test marking in the project. For > this purpose, we use the prefix "_system.py" in the file name. > Unit tests: > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/master/tests/operators/test_gcs_to_gcs.py > System tests: > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/master/tests/operators/test_gcs_to_gcs_operator_system.py > Elsewhere, a special directory structure is used. > Unit tests: https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/master/tests/kubernetes > Integration tests: > https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/master/tests/integration/kubernetes > > This will allow us to limit e.g. mocking in system tests. > This seems to be a clearer solution because it clearly separates each type > of test. If we add markers, they may not be noticed when making changes and > review. The file name is immediately visible. > Recently I dealt with such a case that system tests included mocking, which > by definition did not work. > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/commit/11262c6d42c4612890a6eec71783e0a6d5b22c17 > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 2:22 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > wrote: > > > I am all-in for markers. > > > > I think we should start with small set of useful markers, which should > have > > a useful purpose from the beginning and implement them first - to learn > how > > useful they are (before we decide on full set of markers). > > Otherwise maintaining those markers will become a fruitless "chore" and > it > > might be abandoned. > > > > So my proposal is to agree the first top cases we want to handle with > > markers and then define/apply the markers accordingly: > > > > Those are my three top priorities (from most important to least): > > > > - Splitting out the Integration tests (and updating Breeze) so that > you > > choose which integration you start when you start Breeze rather than > > start > > them all. > > - DB separation so that we do not repeat non-DB tests on all > Databases. > > - Proper separation of Kubernetes tests (They are now filtered out > based > > on skipif/env variables. > > > > > > J. > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 1:32 PM Tomasz Urbaszek < > > tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > Since we run our tests using pytest we are able to use test markers > [1]. > > > Using them will give > > > use some useful things: > > > - additional information of test type (ex. when used for system test) > > > - easy way to select test by types (ex. pytest -v -m "not system") > > > - way to split our test suite in more effective way (no need to run all > > > tests on 3 backends) > > > > > > I would like to discuss what "official" marks would we like to use. As > a > > > base I would suggests > > > to mark tests as: > > > - system - tests that need the outside world to be successful (ex. GCP > > > system tests) > > > - db[postgres, sqlite, mysql] - tests that require database to be > > > successful, in other words, > > > tests that create some db side effects > > > - integration - tests that requires some additional resources like > > > Cassandra or Kubernetes > > > > > > All other, unmarked tests would be treated as "pure" meaning that they > > have > > > no side effects > > > (at least on database level). > > > > > > What do you think about this? Does anyone have some experience with > using > > > markers in > > > such a big project? > > > > > > [1] http://doc.pytest.org/en/latest/example/markers.html > > > > > > > > > Bests, > > > Tomek Urbaszek > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>