On 21 December 2013 13:24, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
>
> On 12/19/2013 8:51 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>>
>> On 4 December 2013 17:10, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>>
>>> I think option 3 makes the most sense here (pending anyone saying we
>>> should run away screaming from mox3 for some reason). It's actu
I added it to the page John linked earlier:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReviewChecklist
-Ben
On 2013-12-23 17:08, Shawn Hartsock wrote:
> Where in the wiki is this written down? Maybe I should read some of these
> entries. I have looked but I can't find it.
> On Dec 23, 2013 11:56 AM
Where in the wiki is this written down? Maybe I should read some of these
entries. I have looked but I can't find it.
On Dec 23, 2013 11:56 AM, "Ben Nemec" wrote:
> On 2013-12-21 07:24, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
>> On 12/19/2013 8:51 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 December 2013 17:10, Russell
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 12/04/2013 12:10 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>
>> On 12/04/2013 11:16 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>>>
>>> Resurrecting this thread because of an interesting review that came up
>>> yesterday [1].
>>>
>>> It seems that our lack of a firm decision o
On 2013-12-21 07:24, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 12/19/2013 8:51 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 4 December 2013 17:10, Russell Bryant wrote:
I think option 3 makes the most sense here (pending anyone saying we
should run away screaming from mox3 for some reason). It's actually
what I had been assumi
On 12/19/2013 8:51 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 4 December 2013 17:10, Russell Bryant wrote:
I think option 3 makes the most sense here (pending anyone saying we
should run away screaming from mox3 for some reason). It's actually
what I had been assuming since this thread a while back.
This m
On 4 December 2013 17:10, Russell Bryant wrote:
> I think option 3 makes the most sense here (pending anyone saying we
> should run away screaming from mox3 for some reason). It's actually
> what I had been assuming since this thread a while back.
>
> This means that we don't need to *require* th
On 2013-12-05 21:38, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 12/04/2013 12:10 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 12/04/2013 11:16 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
Resurrecting this thread because of an interesting review that came
up
yesterday [1].
It seems that our lack of a firm decision on what to do with the
mocking
fra
On 12/04/2013 12:10 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 12/04/2013 11:16 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
Resurrecting this thread because of an interesting review that came up
yesterday [1].
It seems that our lack of a firm decision on what to do with the mocking
framework has left people confused. In hope
On 12/4/2013 10:16 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
On 11/19/2013 05:52 PM, Peter Feiner wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Chuck Short wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Peter Feiner wrote:
A substantive reason for switching from mox to mock is the derelict
state of mox release
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> On 11/19/2013 05:52 PM, Peter Feiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Chuck Short
> wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Peter Feiner
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> A substantive reason for switching from mox
On 12/04/2013 06:15 PM, Peter Feiner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>> 1) Figure out what is the deal with mox3 and decide if owning it will
>> really be less trouble than porting nova. To be hones - I was unable to
>> even find the code repo for it, only [3]. If a
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> 1) Figure out what is the deal with mox3 and decide if owning it will
> really be less trouble than porting nova. To be hones - I was unable to
> even find the code repo for it, only [3]. If anyone has more info -
> please weigh in. We'll al
On 12/04/2013 11:16 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> Resurrecting this thread because of an interesting review that came up
> yesterday [1].
>
> It seems that our lack of a firm decision on what to do with the mocking
> framework has left people confused. In hope to help - I'll give my view
> of where
On 11/19/2013 05:52 PM, Peter Feiner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Chuck Short
> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Peter Feiner wrote:
>>>
>>> A substantive reason for switching from mox to mock is the derelict
>>> state of mox releases. There hasn't been a rel
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Chuck Short wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Peter Feiner wrote:
>>
>> A substantive reason for switching from mox to mock is the derelict
>> state of mox releases. There hasn't been a release of mox in three
>> years: the latest, mox-0.5.3, wa
Hi
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Peter Feiner wrote:
> A substantive reason for switching from mox to mock is the derelict
> state of mox releases. There hasn't been a release of mox in three
> years: the latest, mox-0.5.3, was released in 2010 [1, 2]. Moreover,
> in the past 3 years, subst
A substantive reason for switching from mox to mock is the derelict
state of mox releases. There hasn't been a release of mox in three
years: the latest, mox-0.5.3, was released in 2010 [1, 2]. Moreover,
in the past 3 years, substantial bugs have been fixed in upstream mox.
For example, with the ye
On 11/12/2013 5:04 PM, Chuck Short wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Mark McLoughlin mailto:mar...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:42 -0500, Chuck Short wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Mark McLoughlin
mailto:mar...@red
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:42 -0500, Chuck Short wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Mark McLoughlin
> > wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 13:11 -0800, Shawn Hartsock wrote:
> > > Maybe we should ha
On 12/11/13 21:49 +, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:42 -0500, Chuck Short wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Mark McLoughlin
wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 13:11 -0800, Shawn Hartsock wrote:
> Maybe we should have some 60% rule... that is: If you ch
12, 2013 4:41:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Do we have some guidelines for mock,
> stub, mox when writing unit test?
>
> On 2013-11-12 15:27, Shawn Hartsock wrote:
> > Good point.
> >
> > I assume someone made a comparison similar to this:
> >
On 2013-11-12 15:27, Shawn Hartsock wrote:
Good point.
I assume someone made a comparison similar to this:
* http://garybernhardt.github.io/python-mock-comparison/
... and evangelized a choice. I had assumed that Mock vs mox was not
merely based on Python3 support but had something to do with M
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:42 -0500, Chuck Short wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Mark McLoughlin
> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 13:11 -0800, Shawn Hartsock wrote:
> > Maybe we should have some 60% rule... that is: If you change
> more than
>
From: "Mark McLoughlin"
> > To: "Shawn Hartsock"
> > Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:24:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-
; , "OpenStack Development
> Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:31:25 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Do we have some guidelines for
> mock, stub, mox when writing unit test?
> > >
> >
ss the codebase?
>
> Mark.
>
> > - Original Message -
> > > From: "John Garbutt"
> > > To: "Mark McLoughlin" , "OpenStack Development Mailing
> > > List (not for usage questions)"
> > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, No
estions)"
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:31:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Do we have some guidelines for mock,
> > stub, mox when writing unit test?
> >
> > On 11 November 2013 23:18, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > On Mon,
Mailing
> List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:31:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Do we have some guidelines for mock,
> stub, mox when writing unit test?
>
> On 11 November 2013 23:18, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Mon, 201
On 11 November 2013 23:18, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 12:07 +, John Garbutt wrote:
>> On 11 November 2013 10:27, Rosa, Andrea (HP Cloud Services)
>> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> >>Generally mock is supposed to be used over mox now for python 3 support.
>> >
>> > That is my under
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 12:07 +, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 11 November 2013 10:27, Rosa, Andrea (HP Cloud Services)
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >>Generally mock is supposed to be used over mox now for python 3 support.
> >
> > That is my understanding too
>
> +1
>
> But I don't think we should waste
Got it. Thanks.
Jay
2013/11/11 Davanum Srinivas
> Feedback from some of the Nova sessions were,
>
> "If you are writing new tests, try to use mock."
> "Writing new tests to cover more code (esp drivers) is more preferable
> to any effort that just converts from mox to mock"
>
> -- dims
>
> On
On 11 November 2013 10:27, Rosa, Andrea (HP Cloud Services)
wrote:
> Hi
>
>>Generally mock is supposed to be used over mox now for python 3 support.
>
> That is my understanding too
+1
But I don't think we should waste all our time re-writing all our mox
and stub tests. Lets just leave this to h
Hi
>Generally mock is supposed to be used over mox now for python 3 support.
That is my understanding too
>As for when to use mock vs stubs, I think you'll get different opinions from
>different people. Stubs are quick and easy and that's what I used early when I
>started contributing to the pr
Feedback from some of the Nova sessions were,
"If you are writing new tests, try to use mock."
"Writing new tests to cover more code (esp drivers) is more preferable
to any effort that just converts from mox to mock"
-- dims
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
> Jay Lau w
Jay Lau writes:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that we are now using mock, mox and stub for unit test, just
> curious do we have any guidelines for this, in which condition shall we use
> mock, mox or stub?
>
There is already a blueprint [1] in Nova project to replace Mox with mock.
Also it has a link to
I don't see anything explicit in the wiki and hacking guides, they
mainly just say to have unit tests for everything and tell you how to
run/debug them.
Generally mock is supposed to be used over mox now for python 3 support.
There is also a blueprint to remove the usage of mox in neutron:
ht
Jay,
I am not 100% sure. But personally for me mock are the best choice. 1) py3
support 2) simple for usage.
Best regards,
Boris Pavlovic
---
Mirantis Inc.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Jay Lau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that we are now using mock, mox and stub for unit test, just
> cu
Hi,
I noticed that we are now using mock, mox and stub for unit test, just
curious do we have any guidelines for this, in which condition shall we use
mock, mox or stub?
Thanks,
Jay
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http:
39 matches
Mail list logo
