Although I disagree, I completely understand the negative feelings towards Ansible. I think Ansible has its problems, but it also has many advantages too.
I would be in favor of Ansible over something with less structure like a set of Bash scripts. At the same time, I would probably favor a number of alternatives over Ansible, but I just don't know what those are yet. On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:07 PM, David Lyle <dlyle65...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm -1 on Ansible for testing for the same reasons I recommended reducing > reliance on it for deployment. It simply isn't well suited to be a general > purpose installer (or testing framework) for the variety of OS/Ansible > versions that we find in the wild. > > I'd figure out how/what we want to test and then see what we need for a > suitable framework. I'm certain we can find one that generalizes better > than Ansible has for us so far. > > -D... > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Ryan Merriman <merrim...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I don't think a cluster installed by ansible is a prerequisite to using > > ansible to integration test. They would be completely separate modules > > except maybe sharing some property or inventory files. Just need to run > > scripts and hit rest endpoints right? Just an idea, maybe it's overkill. > > I'm cool with rolling our own. > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Maybe, but I'd argue that we would want this to be run against a > > > non-ansible installed cluster. For a first pass, I'd recommend just a > > set > > > of shell scripts utilizing the REPL and the REST API along with shell > > > commands. Most of our capabilities are quite scriptable. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:47 PM, 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
