Open Stack

On 03/20/2014 04:19 PM, Rochelle.RochelleGrober wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Malini Kamalambal [mailto:malini.kamalambal at RACKSPACE.COM]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:13 PM
>>
>> 'project specific functional testing' in the Marconi context is
>> treating
>> Marconi as a complete system, making Marconi API calls & verifying the
>> response - just like an end user would, but without keystone. If one of
>> these tests fail, it is because there is a bug in the Marconi code ,
>> and
>> not because its interaction with Keystone caused it to fail.
>>
>> "That being said there are certain cases where having a project
>> specific
>> functional test makes sense. For example swift has a functional test
>> job
>> that
>> starts swift in devstack. But, those things are normally handled on a
>> per
>> case
>> basis. In general if the project is meant to be part of the larger
>> OpenStack
>> ecosystem then Tempest is the place to put functional testing. That way
>> you know
>> it works with all of the other components. The thing is in openstack
>> what
>> seems
>> like a project isolated functional test almost always involves another
>> project
>> in real use cases. (for example keystone auth with api requests)
>>
>> "
>>
>> One of the concerns we heard in the review was 'having the functional
>> tests elsewhere (I.e within the project itself) does not count and they
>> have to be in Tempest'.
>> This has made us as a team wonder if we should migrate all our
>> functional
>> tests to Tempest.
>> But from Matt's response, I think it is reasonable to continue in our
>> current path & have the functional tests in Marconi coexist  along with
>> the tests in Tempest.
>>
> I think that what is being asked, really is that the functional tests could be a single set of tests that would become a part of the tempest repository and that these tests would have an ENV variable as part of the configuration that would allow either "no Keystone" or "Keystone" or some such, if that is the only configuration issue that separates running the tests isolated vs. integrated.  The functional tests need to be as much as possible a single set of tests to reduce duplication and remove the likelihood of two sets getting out of sync with each other/development.  If they only run in the integrated environment, that's ok, but if you want to run them isolated to make debugging easier, then it should be a configuration option and a separate test job.
>
> So, if my assumptions are correct, QA only requires functional tests for integrated runs, but if the project QAs/Devs want to run isolated for dev and devtest purposes, more power to them.  Just keep it a single set of functional tests and put them in the Tempest repository so that if a failure happens, anyone can find the test and do the debug work without digging into a separate project repository.
>
> Hopefully, the tests as designed could easily take a new configuration directive and a short bit of work with OS QA will get the integrated FTs working as well as the isolated ones.
>
> --Rocky
This issue has been much debated. There are some active members of our 
community who believe that all the functional tests should live outside 
of tempest in the projects, albeit with the same idea that such tests 
could be run either as part of today's "real" tempest runs or mocked in 
various ways to allow component isolation or better performance. Maru 
Newby posted a patch with an example of one way to do this but I think 
it expired and I don't have a pointer.

IMO there are valid arguments on both sides, but I hope every one could 
agree that functional tests should not be arbitrarily split between 
projects and tempest as they are now. The Tempest README states a desire 
for "complete coverage of the OpenStack API" but Tempest is not close to 
that. We have been discussing and then ignoring this issue for some time 
but I think the recent action to say that Tempest will be used to 
determine if something can use the OpenStack trademark will force more 
completeness on tempest (more tests, that is). I think we need to 
resolve this issue but it won't be easy and modifying existing api tests 
to be more flexible will be a lot of work. But at least new projects 
could get on the right path sooner.

  -David