On 11/12/2013 01:36 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2013-11-12 10:01:06 -0800:
During the freeze phase of Havana we got a ton of new contributors
coming on board to Tempest, which was super cool. However it meant we
had this new influx of negative tests (i.e. tests which push invalid
parameters looking for error codes) which made us realize that human
creation and review of negative tests really doesn't scale. David Kranz
is working on a generative model for this now.
Are there some notes or other source material we can follow to understand
this line of thinking? I don't agree or disagree with it, as I don't
really understand, so it would be helpful to have the problems enumerated
and the solution hypothesis stated. Thanks!
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
I am working on this with Marc Koderer but we only just started and are
not quite ready. But since you asked now...
The problem is that the current implementation of negative tests is that
each "case" is represented as code in a method and targets a particular
set of api arguments and expected result. In most (but not all) of these
tests there is boilerplate code surrounding the real content which is
the actual arguments being passed and the value expected. That
boilerplate code has to be written correctly and reviewed. The general
form of the solution has to be worked out but basically would involve
expressing these tests declaratively, perhaps in a yaml file. In order
to do this we will need some kind of json schema for each api. The main
implementation around this is defining the yaml attributes that make it
easy to express the test cases, and somehow coming up with the json
schema for each api.
In addition, we would like to support "fuzz testing" where arguments
are, at least partially, randomly generated and the return values are
only examined for 4xx vs something else. This would be possible if we
had json schemas. The main work is to write a generator and methods for
creating bad values including boundary conditions for types with ranges.
I had thought a bit about this last year and poked around for an
existing framework. I didn't find anything that seemed to make the job
much easier but if any one knows of such a thing (python, hopefully)
please let me know.
The negative tests for each api would be some combination of
declaratively specified cases and auto-generated ones.
With regard to the json schema, there have been various attempts at this
in the past, including some ideas of how wsme/pecan will help, and it
might be helpful to have more project coordination. I can see a few options:
1. Tempest keeps its own json schema data
2. Each project keeps its own json schema in a way that supports
automated extraction
3. There are several use cases for json schema like this and it gets
stored in some openstacky place that is not in tempest
So that is the starting point. Comments and suggestions welcome! Marc
and I just started working on an etherpad
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bp_negative_tests but any one is
welcome to contribute there.
-David
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
