On 05/07/2014 10:48 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
Hi Sean,
2014-05-07 23:28 GMT+09:00 Sean Dague <s...@dague.net>:
On 05/07/2014 10:23 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
Hi David,
2014-05-07 22:53 GMT+09:00 David Kranz <dkr...@redhat.com>:
I just looked at a patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90310/3 which was
given a -1 due to not checking that every call to list_hosts returns 200. I
realized that we don't have a shared understanding or policy about this. We
need to make sure that each api is tested to return the right response, but
many tests need to call multiple apis in support of the one they are
actually testing. It seems silly to have the caller check the response of
every api call. Currently there are many, if not the majority of, cases
where api calls are made without checking the response code. I see a few
possibilities:
1. Move all response code checking to the tempest clients. They are already
checking for failure codes and are now doing validation of json response and
headers as well. Callers would only do an explicit check if there were
multiple success codes possible.
2. Have a clear policy of when callers should check response codes and apply
it.
I think the first approach has a lot of advantages. Thoughts?
Thanks for proposing this, I also prefer the first approach.
We will be able to remove a lot of status code checks if going on
this direction.
It is necessary for bp/nova-api-test-inheritance tasks also.
Current https://review.openstack.org/#/c/92536/ removes status code checks
because some Nova v2/v3 APIs return different codes and the codes are already
checked in client side.
but it is necessary to create a lot of patch for covering all API tests.
So for now, I feel it is OK to skip status code checks in API tests
only if client side checks are already implemented.
After implementing all client validations, we can remove them of API
tests.
Do we still have instances where we want to make a call that we know
will fail and not through the exception?
I agree there is a certain clarity in putting this down in the rest
client. I just haven't figured out if it's going to break some behavior
that we currently expect.
If a server returns unexpected status code, Tempest fails with client
validations
like the following sample:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/opt/stack/tempest/tempest/api/compute/servers/test_servers.py",
line 36, in test_create_server_with_admin_password
resp, server = self.create_test_server(adminPass='testpassword')
File "/opt/stack/tempest/tempest/api/compute/base.py", line 211, in
create_test_server
name, image_id, flavor, **kwargs)
File "/opt/stack/tempest/tempest/services/compute/json/servers_client.py",
line 95, in create_server
self.validate_response(schema.create_server, resp, body)
File "/opt/stack/tempest/tempest/common/rest_client.py", line 596,
in validate_response
raise exceptions.InvalidHttpSuccessCode(msg)
InvalidHttpSuccessCode: The success code is different than the expected one
Details: The status code(202) is different than the expected one([200])
Thanks
Ken'ichi Ohmichi
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Note that there are currently two different methods on RestClient that
do this sort of thing. Your stacktrace shows "validate_response" which
expects to be passed a schema. The other is "expected_success" which
takes the expected response code and is only used by the image clients.
Both of these will need to stay around since not all APIs have defined
schemas but the expected_success method should probably be changed to
accept a list of valid success responses rather than just one as it does
at present.
I hope we can get agreement to move response checking to the client.
There was no opposition when we started doing this in nova to check
schema. Does any one see a reason to not do this? It would both simplify
the code and make sure responses are checked in all cases.
Sean, do you have a concrete example of what you are concerned about
here? Moving the check from the value returned by a client call to
inside the client code should not have any visible effect unless the
value was actually wrong but not checked by the caller. But this would
be a bug that was just found if a test started failing.
-David
-David
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
