Open Stack

On 12/04/2018 06:13 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
> 
>> Before we start or proceed with the discussion in QA, i would like to 
>> get the nova(placement) team opinion on adding the placement support 
>> in Tempest. Obviously, we should not duplicate the testing effort 
>> between what existing gabbi tests cover or what going to be added in 
>> Tempest which we can take care while adding the new tests.
> 
> My feeling on this is that what should be showing up in tempest with
> regard to placement tests are things that demonstrate and prove end
> to end scenarios in which placement is involved as a critical part,
> but is in the background. For example, things like the emerging minimal
> bandwidth functionality that involves all three of nova, placement
> and neutron.
> 
> I don't think we need extensive testing in Tempest of the placement
> API itself, as that's already well covered by the existing
> functional tests, nor do I think it makes much sense to cover the
> common scheduling scenarios between nova and placement as those are
> also well covered and will continue to be covered even with
> placement extracted [1].
> 
> Existing Tempests tests that do things like launching, resizing,
> migrating servers already touch placement so may be sufficient. If
> we wanted to make these more complete adding verification of
> resource providers and their inventories before and after the tests
> might be useful.

Fully agree with Chris' assessment on this.

Best,
-jay