On 03/20/2014 04:19 PM, Rochelle.RochelleGrober wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Malini Kamalambal [mailto:malini.kamalam...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:13 PM

'project specific functional testing' in the Marconi context is
treating
Marconi as a complete system, making Marconi API calls & verifying the
response - just like an end user would, but without keystone. If one of
these tests fail, it is because there is a bug in the Marconi code ,
and
not because its interaction with Keystone caused it to fail.

"That being said there are certain cases where having a project
specific
functional test makes sense. For example swift has a functional test
job
that
starts swift in devstack. But, those things are normally handled on a
per
case
basis. In general if the project is meant to be part of the larger
OpenStack
ecosystem then Tempest is the place to put functional testing. That way
you know
it works with all of the other components. The thing is in openstack
what
seems
like a project isolated functional test almost always involves another
project
in real use cases. (for example keystone auth with api requests)

"

One of the concerns we heard in the review was 'having the functional
tests elsewhere (I.e within the project itself) does not count and they
have to be in Tempest'.
This has made us as a team wonder if we should migrate all our
functional
tests to Tempest.
But from Matt's response, I think it is reasonable to continue in our
current path & have the functional tests in Marconi coexist  along with
the tests in Tempest.

I think that what is being asked, really is that the functional tests could be a single set of 
tests that would become a part of the tempest repository and that these tests would have an ENV 
variable as part of the configuration that would allow either "no Keystone" or 
"Keystone" or some such, if that is the only configuration issue that separates running 
the tests isolated vs. integrated.  The functional tests need to be as much as possible a single 
set of tests to reduce duplication and remove the likelihood of two sets getting out of sync with 
each other/development.  If they only run in the integrated environment, that's ok, but if you want 
to run them isolated to make debugging easier, then it should be a configuration option and a 
separate test job.

So, if my assumptions are correct, QA only requires functional tests for 
integrated runs, but if the project QAs/Devs want to run isolated for dev and 
devtest purposes, more power to them.  Just keep it a single set of functional 
tests and put them in the Tempest repository so that if a failure happens, 
anyone can find the test and do the debug work without digging into a separate 
project repository.

Hopefully, the tests as designed could easily take a new configuration 
directive and a short bit of work with OS QA will get the integrated FTs 
working as well as the isolated ones.

--Rocky
This issue has been much debated. There are some active members of our community who believe that all the functional tests should live outside of tempest in the projects, albeit with the same idea that such tests could be run either as part of today's "real" tempest runs or mocked in various ways to allow component isolation or better performance. Maru Newby posted a patch with an example of one way to do this but I think it expired and I don't have a pointer.

IMO there are valid arguments on both sides, but I hope every one could agree that functional tests should not be arbitrarily split between projects and tempest as they are now. The Tempest README states a desire for "complete coverage of the OpenStack API" but Tempest is not close to that. We have been discussing and then ignoring this issue for some time but I think the recent action to say that Tempest will be used to determine if something can use the OpenStack trademark will force more completeness on tempest (more tests, that is). I think we need to resolve this issue but it won't be easy and modifying existing api tests to be more flexible will be a lot of work. But at least new projects could get on the right path sooner.

 -David


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to