<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1256">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt">I think what Rocky is speaking to here is similar to the line of thinking I had earlier, which I may not have communicated as well.<br>
<br>
As a tester and a test developer, I want to identify high level use cases or scenarios, and exercise all possible paths so that I have a thorough picture of the behaviors of the system under test. This can conflict with the notion of a DefCore capability, which
speaks to having a single, guaranteed paths to perform an operation. This is where I see the DefCore test selection process kicks in and the workflows that define interop can be selected, given that the tests are designed in an atomic fashion such that individual
tests are tightly scoped and do not creep into steps that may not relate directly to the capability under test. Tests for distinct functionality can still exist to satisfy test coverage, which then can then be used as data about what functionality deployers
are exposing since one of the aspects of the process is to report all Tempest test results and not just the selected ones.<br>
<br>
While I've seen the Glance example bounced around a bit, it sounds like there must be other similar areas of concern, which understanding would help fill in some of the knowledge gaps around these concerns. Is there an existing list of more examples of inconsistencies
that are specifically a concern for interop?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Daryl<br>
<br>
Sent from my Windows Phone</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<hr>
<span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">From:
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:mvoelker@vmware.com">Mark Voelker</a></span><br>
<span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">Sent:
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt">ý6/ý17/ý2015 10:08 PM</span><br>
<span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">To:
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:rochelle.grober@huawei.com">Rochelle Grober</a></span><br>
<span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">Cc:
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org">defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org</a></span><br>
<span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">Subject:
</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; font-size:11pt">Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Identifying and defining missing/new tests for capabilities :Was Image APIs in Glance and Nova</span><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">> On Jun 17, 2015, at 8:51 PM, Rochelle Grober <rochelle.grober@huawei.com> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> I'm replying to this version of John's mail to expand on his "use case" point.<br>
> <br>
> What John calls a use case is, in this instance, the same as a high level "Test Case". Essentially, this is the documentation/comments that define what the test(s) for this case are doing. DefCore (or others) could create these high level test cases and
use them as the framework into which new tests, specific for the capability, could be written. This, I think, would be an ideal way to start documenting missing capabilities tests. For some capabilities, there could be multiple use cases (or test cases)
that define the capability.<br>
> <br>
> This could also be used for existing tests, but instead of including code for each case or step in a case, the git repo link to the existing test could be included. This process could also be used with new tests being linked into the test case document as
they are merged into the trunk.<br>
> <br>
> This process provides the higher level test "specs" that developers implement into tests. It provides both a way to track what tests exist and what don't, and a description of the capability that is understandable by end users and other interested parties
not concerned with the "guts," but just the behavior of the capability.<br>
> <br>
> For the case of multiple ways of performing an action, the tests would need to implement all methods that meet DefCore criteria. If any of the methods result in the appropriate end result, then for DefCore purposes, the test has passed.<br>
<br>
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but this seems hugely problematic for interoperability. If we say there’s more than one way to do a thing but you pass if you implement any one of those ways, then app developers still don’t know what methods they can depend on
being available. Instead of interoperable clouds we have clouds that can do the same things but for which I still have to write a bunch of this**:<br>
<br>
def list_images():<br>
“”” A function to list images. Because all OpenStack Powered Platforms can do that…somehow.””"<br>
if $cloud == ‘vendorA’:<br>
# TODO: this also works for vendorX<br>
list_images_via_nova_image_api()<br>
elif $cloud == ‘vendorB’:<br>
# TODO: this also worked for vendorY last week but now, um?<br>
list_images_via_glance_v1()<br>
elif $cloud == ‘vendorC’:<br>
list_images_via_glance_v2()<br>
else:<br>
# I dunno what cloud this is, but it’s OpenStack Powered! So something must work.<br>
try:<br>
list_images_via_nova_image_api()<br>
except NopeError:<br>
# D’oh, guess that wasn’t it…<br>
try:<br>
list_images_via_glance_v1()<br>
except StillNopeError:<br>
# Aww…well third time’s the charm? <br>
try:<br>
list_images_via_glance_v2()<br>
except NopeNopeNopeError:<br>
rage_quit()<br>
<br>
into any app that I want to be able to run on OpenStack Powered Platforms. Which is a Bad Thing and basically where we’re at now. How you expose a capability matters tremendously. IMHO, interoperability by if/else loop isn’t interoperability at all.
<br>
<br>
** I’m strawmanning slightly here in that I’m pretending these three methods all somehow met DefCore criteria, but you get the picture.<br>
<br>
At Your Service,<br>
<br>
Mark T. Voelker<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Does this make sense for DefCore? As OpenStack matures and acts more like a collection of products rather than a collection of code bases, the processes and collateral of software process that exist to turn code into product come more into play. Hence, the
QA as not just verification gate, but a measurement and metrics repository. <br>
> <br>
> Sorry! Had to get this thought out. You don't need the QA that most SW companies have until you have product. We are getting close to one and so are now in need of expanding OpenStack QA to encompass the other.<br>
> <br>
> --Rocky<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: John Garbutt [<a href="mailto:john@johngarbutt.com">mailto:john@johngarbutt.com</a>]
<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 09:57<br>
> To: defcore-commit.<br>
> Cc: Nikhil Komawar<br>
> Subject: [OpenStack-DefCore] Image APIs in Glance and Nova<br>
> <br>
> Hi,<br>
> <br>
> So this was raised in the cross project meeting, and thank you for that.<br>
> <br>
> I keep mentioning use cases, so here we go...<br>
> * create from cloud base image for ubuntu 12.04<br>
> * above but with boot from volume<br>
> * create a snapshot<br>
> * download snapshot<br>
> * upload image into another openstack cloud<br>
> * boot server from uploaded image<br>
> <br>
> Now, at a higher level:<br>
> * user does above using custom script for Cloud A and Cloud B<br>
> * user keeps to just the APIs that are defcore tested<br>
> * user gets access to Cloud C and Cloud D<br>
> * user wants to point script at new clouds, and everything should just work<br>
> <br>
> So I think thats where we want to be. Now lets dig in...<br>
> <br>
> To list images, the user could:<br>
> * use nova to list images (stable, but project wants to delete it)<br>
> * use glance v1 (should never be exposed to end users, was designed as<br>
> internal only API)<br>
> * use glance v2 (only just released, not really deployed anywhere)<br>
> <br>
> For the<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Defcore-committee mailing list<br>
> Defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee">
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee</a><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Defcore-committee mailing list<br>
> Defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee">
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Defcore-committee mailing list<br>
Defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>