Do you think that then we should mark it as 'deprecate'? so it throws a warning when called until we finally decide to drop it off in a future cycle?
El 11/12/15 a las 03:52, GHANSHYAM MANN escribió: > Hi, > > Yes, That's very valid point about there might be some real users or in > future. > > So Instead of deleting it, how about maintaining it. Only issue here > was gate did not > capture the issues when introduced in his tool. > But we can cover that using Unit tests and if really necessary we can > add experimental job for that. > > 2 thing we need > - Modify current unit tests to mock clients methods at deeper level > instead of complete service clients class. > - If really needed add experimental job for testing on gate. > > Same issue we have for cleanup tool also, I need to check where we can > cover their testing(UT or gate job etc) > > I vote it to keep that (which can be useful for some users (may be > future) who want to quickly tests their Cloud's resource > creation/deletion etc ) > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> > wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:15:06AM +0100, Daniel Mellado wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> In today's QA meeting we were discussing about dropping Javelin off >>> tempest if it's not being used anymore in grenade, as sdague pointed >>> out. We were thinking about this as a part of the work for [1], where we >>> hit issue on Javelin script testing where gate did not detect the >>> service clients changes in this script. >> So the reason we didn't remove this from tempest when we stopped using it as >> part of grenade is at the time there were external users. They still wanted >> to >> keep the tooling around. This is why the unit tests were grown in an effort >> to >> maintain some semblance of testing after the grenade removal. (for a long >> time >> it was mostly self testing through the grenade job) >> >>> Our intention it's to drop the following files off tempest: >>> >>> * tempest/cmd/javelin.py >>> <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/254274/3/tempest/cmd/javelin.py> >>> * tempest/cmd/resources.yaml >>> <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/254274/3/tempest/cmd/resources.yaml> >>> * tempest/tests/cmd/test_javelin.py >>> >>> <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/254274/3/tempest/tests/cmd/test_javelin.py> >>> >>> Before doing so, we'd like to get some feedback about out planned move, >>> so if you have any questions, comments or feedback, please reply to this >>> thread. >> You should not just delete these files, there were real users of it in the >> past >> and there might still be. If you're saying that javelin isn't something we >> can >> realistically maintain anymore (which I'm not sure I buy, but whatever) we >> should first mark it for deprecation and have a warning print saying it will >> be >> removed in the future. This gives people a chance to stop using it and >> migrate >> to something else. (using ansible would be a good alternative) >> >> >> -Matt Treinish >> >>> --- >>> [1] >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/tempest+branch:master+topic:bp/consistent-service-method-names,n,z >>> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
