<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br></div><div><br>On Apr 6, 2015, at 11:41, Mike Bayer <<a href="mailto:mbayer@redhat.com">mbayer@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/6/15 12:49 PM, David Stanek wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAO69NdmFwgJLh-=VwBV3Z-KKC+Prwb+m46HsAn95LyAZRbzK_w@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Exactly. This is the direction I have been going.
Functional tests are written using the public APIs using the
client.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I would also add that I don't like that the Keystone
unit tests are so database heavy. I would not want MySQL or ant
RDBMS to be a requirement for running the tests.</p>
</blockquote>
is that because you'd prefer that the unit tests were more isolated,
or just that an external service is being used?<br>
<br>
I've done some work with extensive mocking of SQL databases;
specifically mocking at the ORM level. It is nice when you get it
to run, but it's also a much bigger job to write fine-grained mocks
like that, the mocks can be brittle in relation to the code they're
targeting, and you also need to come up with some solution to
actually functional test your database access code.<br>
<br>
I tend to think that having a mysqld service running is the lesser
of two evils and you get a lot more code coverage by going all the
way out to the DB.<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What David is specifically referencing is that we want our functional tests to only require direct API access. There is almost no reason to need access to the DB backend. We have many ways to perform isolation where needed (tempest does a lot of this today). </div><div><br></div><div>The goal is to allow the functional test suite to run against any keystone deployment (be agnostic to db, non-db, etc driver used). This makes environment setup a separate concern the tests don't need to be involved in/aware of. It makes our functional tests more useful for validating a driver or configuration passes muster. </div><div><br></div><div>If there are legitimately cases we need to test a specific db function in isolation we will make specific efforts to support it. Those are apt to be the exception to the rule. </div><div><br></div><div>--Morgan</div><div>Sent via mobile </div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAO69NdmFwgJLh-=VwBV3Z-KKC+Prwb+m46HsAn95LyAZRbzK_w@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 6, 2015, 12:42 Morgan
Fainberg <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:morgan.fainberg@gmail.com">morgan.fainberg@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
> On Apr 6, 2015, at 09:20, Mike Bayer <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mbayer@redhat.com" target="_blank"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mbayer@redhat.com">mbayer@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> On 4/6/15 12:06 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:<br>
>> Excerpts from Boris Bobrov's message of 2015-04-03
18:29:08 -0700:<br>
>>>> On Saturday 04 April 2015 03:55:59 Morgan
Fainberg wrote:<br>
>>>> I am looking forward to the Liberty cycle and
seeing the special casing we<br>
>>>> do for SQLite in our migrations (and
elsewhere). My inclination is that we<br>
>>>> should (similar to the deprecation of
eventlet) deprecate support for<br>
>>>> SQLite in Keystone. In Liberty we will have a
full functional test suite<br>
>>>> that can (and will) be used to validate
everything against much more real<br>
>>>> environments instead of in-process
“eventlet-like” test-keystone-services;<br>
>>>> the “Restful test cases” will no longer be
part of the standard unit tests<br>
>>>> (as they are functional testing). With this
change I’m inclined to say<br>
>>>> SQLite (being the non-production usable DB)
what it is we should look at<br>
>>>> dropping migration support for SQLite and the
custom work-arounds.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Most deployers and developers (as far as I
know) use devstack and MySQL or<br>
>>>> Postgres to really suss out DB interactions.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I am looking for feedback from the community
on the general stance for<br>
>>>> SQLite, and more specifically the benefit (if
any) of supporting it in<br>
>>>> Keystone.<br>
>>> +1. Drop it and clean up tons of code used for
support of sqlite only.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Doing tests with mysql is as easy, as with sqlite
("mysqladmin drop -f;<br>
>>> mysqladmin create" for "reset"), and using it by
default will finally make<br>
>>> people test their code on real rdbmses.<br>
>> Please please please be careful with that and make
sure the database<br>
>> name is _always_ random in tests... or even better,
write a fixture to<br>
>> spin up a mysqld inside a private tempdir. That would
be a really cool<br>
>> thing for oslo.db to provide actually.<br>
>><br>
>> I'm just thinking some poor sap runs the test suite
with the wrong<br>
>> .my.cnf in the wrong place and <poof> there
went keystone's db.<br>
> The standard approach here is that tests based on the
oslo.db approach by default connect using a username
openstack_citest on localhost, which is then used to create
databases of random names. If you base your database tests on
oslo.db, you get that right now. This username/host/etc is
also configurable through environment variables. I don't see
how my.cnf is involved in this nor how it would impact
someone's keystone database, unless we're talking about tests
that happen to load down and/or crash the whole database
server.<br>
><br>
> spinning up a whole mysqld seems really heavy-handed and
unnecessary. Not to mention the tests run on other backends
as well such as Postgresql.<br>
><br>
<br>
The reasons outlined by both Clint and Mike are why we won't
be attempting this until we are happy with our functional test
suite. But once we are happy dropping SQLite is on the table.
The way I see it the functional tests should be performed
against a real keystone server, even if it is one spun up for
testing specifically.<br>
<br>
Per test db creation / other such stuff will be part of that
discussion.<br></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></body></html>