On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 03:39:51PM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 01/08/2016 02:52 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: > >>On 01/07/2016 07:38 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > >snippity snip snip > > > >>>We haven't made it a dep for anything yet, only added to g-r. > >> > >>According to Dims, not to g-r, but to u-c, right Dims? Not sure if that > >>makes functionally any difference, though (pun intended). > > > >Both. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/220268/ > > > >This thread was originally about twisted, which is added to u-c with the > >introduction of mimic. > > Got it, thanks. > > >>>However, now that you mention that, a really ambitious goal would be to > >>>add a rabbit interface to mimic, and functionally test the API server > >>>(that it sends the right messages, etc). Another would be to mimic > >>>(Neutron, Glance) and test Ironic by itself. > >> > >>So you would reimplement AMQP communication protocols using an in-memory > >>data store for queues. Sounds like an even greater surface area for bugs to > >>be introduced. > >> > >>>Last, I frankly don't understand why there's > >>>such heavy opposition to the ironic team using an additional tool for > >>>testing. > >> > >>Since you asked, I'll be blunt. This isn't a personal attack on you, Jim, > >>though. > >> > >>a) Because it fractures the testing and QA processes used by upstream > >>contributors that work on OpenStack projects by requiring them to learn > >>another system -- and one that potentially would require them to understand > >>a whole new surface area for potential bugs > > > >I don't think there's a large risk of needing to dig deep into mimic, > >and especially twisted. If this does prove to be a problem, I'm happy to > >remove it. However, we can't even explore what it would be like, or how > >hard we would depend on mimic, without mimic being in g-r. > > Sure, fair enough. > > >>b) Because it represents yet another RAX-driven divergence in the QA space. > >>CloudCafe took essentially all of the RAX folks that were at one point > >>working on Tempest and upstream QA and siloed them into a totally different > >>organization, in true RAX fashion. Instead of pulling the OpenStack QA > >>community along together, RAX QA continues to just do its own thing and > >>there's still bitterness on the tips of tongues. > > > >So, this isn't trying to replace anything. This is adding a different > >way to run functional tests, that is *much* faster than standing up a > >full ironic environment. This is helpful for developers that want to > >quickly run tests before posting them to gerrit, people that need to > >test in constrained environments, etc. > > I recognize it is much faster than standing up a real environment. And I > recognize that running faster client tests is a useful thing -- as long as > we can be confident that what is tested does not suffer from some of the > issues I identified earlier (syncing with real API and introduction of > greater surface area for bugs in the test platform itself). > > >I'm 100% against doing things like Rackspace did with tempest and > >cloudcafe, and I wouldn't be supporting this effort if I felt it was > >similar. Here's how this went: > > > >* Lekha started working on OnMetal QA, with a goal of doing some amount > > of upstream work as well. > > > >* She's previously worked on projects (like autoscale) that interact > > with OpenStack APIs, and seeing the need to test without a full nova > > environment, built mimic. > > > >* In talking with some of the other Ironic folks working on QA (from > > Intel, IBM, more), she presented mimic as something that may be useful > > for testing the client (and more). They (and I) agreed it was a neat > > idea worth trying. > > > >* Jay offered to help with the global-requirements patch as it's > > something he's done before, and did the review grinding here. > > > >* It finally landed, and lifeless asked me to bring up the Twisted > > conversation on the list. Note that this is not the "is mimic > > useful" conversation we're having now. Nobody remotely voiced > > concerns about using a new test tool until this thread happened. > > > >Please do let me know if any of that seems nefarious; I hope it doesn't. > > No, nothing nefarious there. Sorry for letting my personal frustrations > bubble over into this. > > I am not blocking anything from going forward and I definitely am not asking > for a revert of any g-r patch. Nor am I trying to obstruct you in your > governance of Ironic. > > I was just raising my concerns as an OpenStack citizen and getting my > opinion out on paper.
As you should; thanks for doing that. I'm eager to see how this goes. :) // jim __________________________________________________________________________ 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