Open Stack

Hi,

see below.

Regards
Marc
________________________________________
From: Kenichi Oomichi [oomichi at mxs.nes.nec.co.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:24 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] moratorium on new negative tests in Tempest

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Kranz [mailto:dkranz at redhat.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:33 AM
>> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] moratorium on new negative tests in Tempest

>> So that is the starting point. Comments and suggestions welcome! Marc
>> and I just started working on an etherpad
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bp_negative_tests but any one is
>> welcome to contribute there.

>Negative tests based on yaml would be nice because of cleaning the code up
>and making the tests more readable.
>just one question:
> On the etherpad, there are some "invaid_uuid"s.
> Does that mean invalid string (ex. utf-8 string, not ascii)?
>             or invalid uuid format(ex. uuid.uuid4() + "foo")?

Great that you already had a look!
So my idea is that we have a battery of functions which can create erroneous input.
My intention for invalid_uuid was just something like uuid.uuid4() - but the name is a bit misleading.
We can use additional functions that create the input that you are suggesting. I think all of them make sense.

> IIUC, in negative test session, we discussed that tests passing utf-8 string
> as API parameter should be negative tests, and the server should return a
> BadRequest response.
> I guess we need to implement such API negative tests. After that, if finding
> an unfavorable behavior of some server, we need to implement API validation
> for the server.
> (unfavorable behavior ex. When a client send utf-8 request, the server returns
> a NotFound response, not a BadRequest one)

+1