On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:19:21AM +0800, wenchao xia wrote: > δΊ 2012-4-26 21:57, Adam Litke ει: > >On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 05:24:29PM +0800, wenchao xia wrote: > >>Hello, > >> vdsm now have UT suits for developer, but sometimes building and > >>installation machine is not the same one, and additional check is need > >>which is ignored at building time, so I think some test cases should be > >>also run on target machine to check potential errors, Then I want to > >>introduce a sub package as VT suits. > >>Purpose: > >> UT: for developers, more likely a white box, running on building > >>environment. > >> VT: for user and deployment, more likely a black box, running on > >> product or testing environment, all known issue should be covered. > >> > >>Supposed approach: > >> 1 modify building system to generate package: vdsm-VT.rpm. > > > >I would prefer the package name 'vdsm-test.rpm' and this package should > >include > >unit tests and verification tests. > > > >> 2 install as an option, after install, user type "vdsm-VT" would make > >>the test begin. > > > >The test runner should be able to run the full suite of unit tests and > >verification tests (with an option to run only unit tests or only > >verification > >tests). This can be the same program that we use in the build environment > >except that it will set the PYTHONPATH differently to target the installed > >files. > > > good idea, checking on the details of vdsm-hack in tests. > > >>Planned details: > >> 1 Going to place cases in vdsm project in ./tests/VT. > >> 2 On installation will move some useful UT cases into VT. > > > >If you follow my approach above, you would simply package the whole tests/ > >directory and no copying would be necessary. > > > >> 3 use same framework UT used. > >> 4 two sub dir in test/VT: user_case_test;general_test. > > > >What is the difference between these two types of tests? > > > user_cases would holds tests simulating the scenario user calling > vdsm, and it could be examples for user. xmlrpc(vdscli) and rest-api > cases would go here. I guess xmlrpc testcases already exist in engine > side, and moving them here makes vdsm more independent and robust. > general_test would holds test detecting target environment problem, > such as authority settings, and thread pipe tests, etc. > The names of the two directories are not good, need to be justified. > > >> It is just a scratch from my mind, so I'd like hear your opinions. > > > >Thanks for the idea! Do you have a sample test for the verification test > >suite? > >Will it be your pipe deadlock test? > > > Yeah, plan to place the test in it. > > As summary, I guess a better structure of test would be as following: > > vdsm > |--tests > |test_runner.sh > |--UT > |--VT > |--xmlrpc > |--rest > |--general
Sounds reasonable. But what's "general"? Isn't VT going to be using some kind of binding in any case? Oh, it might be a stupid comment, but I personally dislike upper case directory names. I find /ut/ /vt/ more modest. Dan. _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
