[openstack-dev] [qa] [tc] [all] more tempest plugins (was Re: [tc] [all] TC Report 22)
zbitter at redhat.com
Mon Jun 5 16:32:36 UTC 2017
On 05/06/17 09:43, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 06/01/2017 06:09 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>> It's clear from this thread and other conversations that the
>> management of tempest plugins is creating a multiplicity of issues
>> and confusions:
>> * Some projects are required to use plugins and some are not. This
>> creates classes of projects.
> While this is true, there are also reasons for that. We decided to break
> up the compute service into distinct parts years ago to help let each
> part grow dedicated expertise (images, networking, block storage).
> However, there is a ton of coupling here even though these are broken up.
> My continued resistance to decomposing the QA side of those projects is
> getting that integration testing right, and debugging it is hard,
> because there are so many interactions required to have a working server
> started. And Nova, Neutron, Cinder are the top three most active
> projects in OpenStack. So the rate of change individually is quite high.
> Forcing those services out into plugins because of the feeling that
Presumably that could be addressed by splitting the
Nova/Neutron/Cinder/Glance tests not used by the OpenStack Powered
trademark program (aka DefCore) into a combined base-compute Tempest
Or are you saying there's coupling between the Defcore and non-Defcore
tests that isn't mediated by tempest-lib? If that's the case then I'd be
concerned that we might run into this problem again in the future.
> something doesn't look fair on paper is just generating more work to
> create spherical elephants, instead of acknowledging the amount of work
> the QA team has on it's shoulders, and letting it optimize for a better
> experience by OpenStack users. Especially given limited resources.
More information about the OpenStack-dev