Open Stack

Yea, there is no doubt we should refactor scenario tests but even those are
internal interface it breaks plugins. We can argue that plugins should not
be using those but before that tempest should have all required
interface/class/helper as stable interface for plugins. which is what
scenario tests refactoring is trying to do.

​​I agree with the process Andrea defined and we should follow the same. If
we can put a deadline for projects to fix, we can speed up our work of
refactoring. I propose to keep refactoring patch for 2 week (including
comments fixes etc) and give time to plugins to fix and yes we will help
them. ​
After 2 week of time, we do not guarantee about any plugin failure (with
very rare exception if interface is being used very widely)

Let's not break plugins (what we doing as max as possible) but we really
need each plugins helps on those. QA team fix plugins since starting and we
have submitted lot of patches for many plugins to fix them and many of them
never got attention or reviewed.
For such cases (which falls under 2 week of deadlines), yes plugins needs
to take full responsibility if any of the tempest interface break them.

-gmann

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Andrea Frittoli <andrea.frittoli at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:49 AM Masayuki Igawa <masayuki at igawa.me> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you for bringing this up.
>>
>> Yeah, I understand your frustration. We already have the document about
>> our stable interface[1]. It says
>> ------
>> Stability
>> Any code that lives in tempest/lib will be treated as a stable interface.
>> This means that any public interface under the tempest/lib directory is
>> expected to be a stable interface suitable for public consumption. However,
>> for any interfaces outside of tempest/lib in the tempest tree (unless
>> otherwise noted) or any private interfaces the same stability guarantees
>> don't apply.
>> ------
>>
>> So we can change private interfaces basically. However, I also assume
>> that this document is not well known(or people just ignore it, though,
>> maybe). So I'd like to advertise this policy here, and discuss it (if the
>> discussion is needed.)
>>
>> [1] https://docs.openstack.org/developer/tempest/library.html#stability
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 22:39 Jordan Pittier <jordan.pittier at scality.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>> So I have a problem with these 2 patches here [1] and here [2]. You
>> basically are blocking any attempt of refactoring manager.py. Refactoring
>> that file has been our number one priority for 2 cycles, and so far hardly
>> no one stepped up really to do the work, except me with these 2 patches.
>> Let me remind you that that file is a gigantic mess, an so are our network
>> scenarios.
>>
>> The manager.py file in the scenarios directory has no stable interface,
>> and it was never "advertised" so. That some plugins decided to use some
>> private methods (such as this _get_network_by_name) is unfortunate but that
>> should not block us from moving.
>>
>>
> I agree this should not block us from moving, and as you mentioned we
> definitely need to move and I appreciate the fact that you started the work!
>
>
>>
>> So just to be clear, if we really want to refactor our scenarios (and we
>> must in my opinion), things will break for projects that are importing
>> Tempest and using it outside of its stable interface. I am not interested
>> in being the good Samaritan for the whole OpenStack galaxy, I have enough
>> with the 6 core projects and the Tempest stable interface. So guys, if you
>> are and don't want to go forward with [1] and [2], be sure I'll never touch
>> those scenarios again. I am not upset, but we have to make clear decisions,
>> sometimes difficult.
>>
>>
> We have no way to know exactly who's using unstable interfaces in Tempest,
> so it's likely someone will have to change their code as a consequence of
> the refactor.
> But I think it's important that we are good citizens and advertise well
> what's going to change, even if it's about an interface which is not
> declared as stable.
>
>
>> [1] : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/436555/
>> [2] : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438097/
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> ______________
>> 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
>>
>> --
>> Masayuki Igawa
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> ______________
>> 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
>
>
> Scenario tests will go through a significant number of changes as part of
> the refactor and if every change risks to break someone's gate job it won't
> work.
> I propose we proceed as follows:
> - identify projects that import from tempest.scenario
> - send a notification to the ML about the changes that are going to happen
> - help the affected teams to identify a way decouple them from tempest
> scenario code - most likely copy the relevant code in-tree
> - meanwhile continue to work on patches for scenario tests but do not
> merge them yet​
>

> This process shouldn't take long and be rather straight forward.
>
> I already have some data from codesearch, I will send out the e-mail
> tomorrow.
>
> Andrea
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20170227/3be14c29/attachment.html>