Re: [rant] stupid test cases

2013-07-24 Thread Prasanna Santhanam
> >> > achieve the scenario and not try to put everything and the kitchen > >> > sink in to it. If we see ourselves doing that - we need to break down > >> > our tests into smaller blocks. They'll still be > >> > system/integration/live tests only

Re: [rant] stupid test cases

2013-07-23 Thread Mathias Mullins
>> > today. >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 01:12:14AM +, Alex Huang wrote: >> > > I disagree. Error handling should be part of our testing. >> > > >> > > We should incorporate the simulator into the BVT and regression >> &g

Re: [rant] stupid test cases

2013-07-23 Thread Ahmad Emneina
st the business logic > > > rather than the provisioning code, the test case should perform all > > > of the provisioning on the simulator instead. Then simulator can be > > > programmed to simulate VM stopped failure etc and see how the > > > business

Re: [rant] stupid test cases

2013-07-23 Thread Prasanna Santhanam
can be > > programmed to simulate VM stopped failure etc and see how the > > business responds to these problems. > > > > --Alex > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Anthony Xu [mailto:xuefei...@citrix.com] > > > Sent: Thursday,

Re: [rant] stupid test cases

2013-07-19 Thread Prasanna Santhanam
and see how the > business responds to these problems. > > --Alex > > > -Original Message- > > From: Anthony Xu [mailto:xuefei...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:02 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: RE:

RE: [rant] stupid test cases

2013-07-18 Thread Alex Huang
rg > Subject: RE: [rant] stupid test cases > > +1 VM can be in "Stopped" state > > > Anthony > > -Original Message- > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:47 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache

RE: [rant] stupid test cases

2013-07-18 Thread Anthony Xu
+1 VM can be in "Stopped" state Anthony -Original Message- From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:47 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [rant] stupid test cases I can understand that we may want to test that everythi

RE: [rant] stupid test cases

2013-07-18 Thread Alex Huang
I don't believe this is a bad testcase. It's to force the code path on cleanup procedure before a domain is properly deleted. If this was a unit-test I would say there's no point. For a systems/integration test, the testcase makes sense. --Alex > -Original Message- > From: Prasanna

Re: [rant] stupid test cases

2013-07-17 Thread Marcus Sorensen
I can understand that we may want to test that everything related to the domain gets cleaned up properly. We have run into all sorts of things when deleting accounts, for example where resources won't clean up because the account is gone and we throw null pointers because a bunch of code looks up a