Open Stack

Ivan,

I agree that our testing needs improvement.  Thanks for starting this 
thread.

With regards to adding a hacking check for tests that run too long ... 
are you thinking that we would have a timer that checks or long running 
jobs or something that checks for long sleeps in the testing code?  Just 
curious your ideas for tackling that situation.  Would be interested in 
helping with that, perhaps.

Thanks!
Jay

On 03/02/2016 05:25 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Here are my thoughts and proposals how to make Cinder testing process 
> better. I won't cover "3rd party CI's" topic here. I will share my 
> opinion about current and feature jobs.
>
>
> Unit-tests
>
>   * Long-running tests. I hope, everybody will agree that unit-tests
>     must be quite simple and very fast. Unit tests which takes more
>     than 3-5 seconds should be refactored and/or moved to
>     'integration' tests.
>     Thanks to Tom Barron for several fixes like [1]. IMO, we it would
>     be good to have some hacking checks to prevent such issues in a
>     future.
>
>   * Tests coverage. We don't check it in an automatic way on gates.
>     Usually, we require to add some unit-tests during code review
>     process. Why can't we add coverage job to our CI and do not merge
>     new patches, with will decrease tests coverage rate? Maybe, such
>     job could be voting in a future to not ignore it. For now, there
>     is not simple way to check coverage because 'tox -e cover' output
>     is not useful [2].
>
>
> Functional tests for Cinder
>
> We introduced some functional tests last month [3]. Here is a patch to 
> infra to add new job [4]. Because these tests were moved from 
> unit-tests, I think we're OK to make this job voting. Such tests 
> should not be a replacement for Tempest. They even could tests Cinder 
> with Fake Driver to make it faster and not related on storage backends 
> issues.
>
>
> Tempest in-tree tests
>
> Sean started work on it [5] and I think it's a good idea to get them 
> in Cinder repo to run them on Tempest jobs and 3-rd party CIs against 
> a real backend.
>
>
> Functional tests for python-brick-cinderclient-ext
>
> There are patches that introduces functional tests [6] and new job [7].
>
>
> Functional tests for python-cinderclient
>
> We've got a very limited set of such tests and non-voting job. IMO, we 
> can run them even with Cinder Fake Driver to make them not depended on 
> a storage backend and make it faster. I believe, we can make this job 
> voting soon. Also, we need more contributors to this kind of tests.
>
>
> Integrated tests for python-cinderclient
>
> We need such tests to make sure that we won't break Nova, Heat or 
> other python-cinderclient consumers with a next merged patch. There is 
> a thread in openstack-dev ML about such tests [8] and proposal [9] to 
> introduce them to python-cinderclient.
>
>
> Rally tests
>
> IMO, it would be good to have new Rally scenarios for every patches 
> like 'improves performance', 'fixes concurrency issues', etc. Even if 
> we as a Cinder community don't have enough time to implement them, we 
> have to ask for them in reviews, openstack-dev ML, file Rally bugs and 
> blueprints if needed.
>
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/282861/
> [2] http://paste.openstack.org/show/488925/
> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/267801/
> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/287115/
> [5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/274471/
> [6] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/265811/
> [7] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/265925/
> [8] 
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088027.html
> [9] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/279432/
>
>
> Regards,
> Ivan Kolodyazhny,
> http://blog.e0ne.info/
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160305/23496eea/attachment.html>