Does this mean we’ll have non manual rest/web deployment soon?
On March 22, 2017 at 14:47:34, Ryan Merriman (merrim...@gmail.com) wrote: Bumping this thread. Looks like we have several +1s so I propose we move to the next step. I'm anxious to get this done because these tests would have saved me time over the last couple weeks. The management UI in https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/484 has a set of e2e tests being maintained in another branch so those could also be included in this test suite when the UI makes it into master. Ideas for an "Acceptance Testing Framework"? Could Ansible be good fit for this since we already have it in our stack? On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, yes I agree. In my experience with e2e/acceptance tests, they're best > kept general with an emphasis on verifying that all the plumbing works > together. So yes, there are definite edge cases I think we'll want to test > here, but I say that with the caveat that I think we should ideally cover > as many non-happy-path cases in unit and integration tests as possible. As > an example, I don't think it makes sense to cover most of the profiler > windowing DSL language edge cases in acceptance tests instead of or in > addition to unit/integration tests unless there is something specific to > the integration with a given an environment that we think could be > problematic. > > M > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > No, I'm saying that they shouldn't be restricted to real-world use-cases. > > The E2E tests I laid out weren't real-world, but they did exercise the > > components similar to real-world use-cases. They should also be able to > be > > able to tread outside of the happy-path for those use-cases. > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Michael Miklavcic < > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "I don't think acceptance tests should loosely associate with real > uses, > > > but they should > > > be free to delve into weird non-happy-pathways." > > > > > > Not following - are you saying they should *tightly* associate with > real > > > uses and additonally include non-happy-path? > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > It is absolutely not a naive question, Matt. We don't have a lot (or > > > any) > > > > docs about our integration tests; it's more of a "follow the lead" > type > > > of > > > > thing at the moment, but that should be rectified. > > > > > > > > The integration tests spin up and down infrastructure in-process, > some > > of > > > > which are real and some of which are mock versions of the services. > > > These > > > > are good for catching some types of bugs, but often things sneak > > through, > > > > like: > > > > > > > > - Hbase and storm can't exist in the same JVM, so HBase is mocked > in > > > > those cases. > > > > - The FileSystem that we get for Hadoop is the LocalRawFileSystem, > > not > > > > truly HDFS. There are differences and we've run into > > > them..hilariously > > > > at > > > > times. ;) > > > > - Things done statically in a bolt are shared across all bolts > > because > > > > they all are threads in the same process > > > > > > > > It's good, it catches bugs, it lets us debug things easily, it runs > > with > > > > every single build automatically via travis. > > > > It's bad because it's awkward to get the dependencies isolated > > > sufficiently > > > > for all of these components to get them to play nice in the same JVM. > > > > > > > > Acceptance tests would be run against a real cluster, so they would: > > > > > > > > - run against real components, not testing or mock components > > > > - run against multiple nodes > > > > > > > > I can imagine a world where we can unify the two to a certain degree > in > > > > many cases if we could spin up a docker version of Metron to run as > > part > > > of > > > > the build, but I think in the meantime, we should focus on providing > > > both. > > > > > > > > I suspect the reference application is possibly inspiring my > > suggestions > > > > here, but I think the main difference here is that the reference > > > > application is intended to be informational from a end-user > > perspective: > > > > it's detailing a use-case that users will understand. I don't think > > > > acceptance tests should loosely associate with real uses, but they > > should > > > > be free to delve into weird non-happy-pathways. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Matt Foley <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Automating stuff that now has to be done manually gets a big +1. > > > > > > > > > > But, Casey, could you please clarify the relationship between what > > you > > > > > plan to do and the current “integration test” framework? Will this > > be > > > in > > > > > the form of additional integration tests? Or a different test > > > framework? > > > > > Can it be done in the integration test framework, rather than > > creating > > > > new > > > > > mechanism? > > > > > > > > > > BTW, if that’s a naïve question, forgive me, but I could find zero > > > > > documentation for the existing integration test capability, neither > > > wiki > > > > > pages nor READMEs nor Jiras. If there are any docs, please point > me > > at > > > > > them. Or even archived email threads. > > > > > > > > > > There is also something called the “Reference Application” > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/ > > > > > Metron+Reference+Application which sounds remarkably like what you > > > > > propose to automate. Is there / can there / should there be a > > > > relationship? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > --Matt > > > > > > > > > > On 3/3/17, 7:40 AM, "Otto Fowler" <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Justin’s points. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On March 3, 2017 at 08:41:37, Justin Leet ( > justinjl...@gmail.com > > ) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 to both. Having this would especially ease a lot of testing > > that > > > > > hits > > > > > multiple areas (which there is a fair amount of, given that > we're > > > > > building > > > > > pretty quickly). > > > > > > > > > > I do want to point out that adding this type of thing makes the > > > speed > > > > > of > > > > > our builds and tests more important, because they already take > > up a > > > > > good > > > > > amount of time. There are obviously tickets to optimize these > > > things, > > > > > but > > > > > I would like to make sure we don't pile too much on to every > > > testing > > > > > cycle > > > > > before a PR. Having said that, I think the testing proposed is > > > > > absolutely > > > > > valuable enough to go forward with. > > > > > > > > > > Justin > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Casey Stella < > ceste...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I also propose, once this is done, that we modify the > developer > > > > > bylaws > > > > > and > > > > > > the github PR script to ensure that PR authors: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Update the acceptance tests where appropriate > > > > > > - Run the tests as a smoketest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Casey Stella < > > ceste...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After doing METRON-744, where I had to walk through a > manual > > > test > > > > > of > > > > > > every > > > > > > > place that Stellar touched, it occurred to me that we > should > > > > script > > > > > this. > > > > > > > It also occurred to me that some scripts that are run by > the > > PR > > > > > author > > > > > to > > > > > > > ensure no regressions and, eventually maybe, even run on an > > > INFRA > > > > > > instance > > > > > > > of Jenkins would give all of us some peace of mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am certain that this, along with a couple other manual > > tests > > > > from > > > > > other > > > > > > > PRs, could form the basis of a really great regression > > > > > acceptance-test > > > > > > > suite and I'd like to propose that we do that, as a > > community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'd like to see from such a suite has the following > > > > > characteristics: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Can be run on any Metron cluster, including but not > limited > > > to > > > > > > > - Vagrant > > > > > > > - AWS > > > > > > > - An existing deployment > > > > > > > - Can be *deployed* from ansible, but must be able to be > > > deployed > > > > > > > manually > > > > > > > - With instructions in the readme > > > > > > > - Tests should be idempotent and independent > > > > > > > - Tear down what you set up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think between the Stellar REPL and the fundamental > > > > scriptability > > > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > Hadoop services, we can accomplish these tests with a > > > combination > > > > > of > > > > > > shell > > > > > > > scripts and python. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose we break this into the following parts: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Acceptance Testing Framework with a small smoketest > > > > > > > - Baseline Metron Test > > > > > > > - Send squid data through the squid topology > > > > > > > - Add an threat triage alert > > > > > > > - Ensure it gets through to the other side with alerts > > > preserved > > > > > > > - + Enrichment > > > > > > > - Add an enrichment in the enrichment pipeline to the above > > > > > > > - + Profiler > > > > > > > - Add a profile with a tick of 1 minute to count per > > > destination > > > > > > > address > > > > > > > - Base PCap test > > > > > > > - Something like the manual test for METRON-743 ( > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/467# > > > > > > issue-210285324 > > > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/467# > > > > > > issue-210285324> > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Casey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
