[dev][nova][placement][qa] opinion on adding placement tests support in Tempest

Ghanshyam Mann gmann at ghanshyammann.com
Wed Dec 5 10:53:43 UTC 2018


 ---- On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 03:30:56 +0900 Chris Dent <cdent+os at anticdent.org> wrote ---- 
 > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Dan Smith wrote: 
 >  
 > >> On 12/04/2018 06:13 AM, Chris Dent wrote: 
 > >>> 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. 
 >  
 > [snip] 
 >  
 > > I don't disagree either. However, I do think that there are cases where 
 > > it may make sense to be _able_ to hit the placement endpoint from 
 > > tempest in order to verify that certain things are happening, even in a 
 > > scenario that involves other services. 
 >  
 > [snip] 
 >  
 > Based on conversation with Dan in IRC, we decided it might be useful 
 > to clarify that Dan and I are in agreement. It had seemed to me that 
 > he was saying something different from me, but we're both basically 
 > saying "yes, tempest needs to be able to talk to placement to 
 > confirm what it's holding because that's useful sometimes" and "no, 
 > tempest doesn't need to verify the workings of placement api itself". 

Yeah, that is what we wanted. I think I mentioned that in my original mail  but that sentence was not so clear.
There will not be any overlap/duplicate tests between what existing functional test cover and what Tempest is going to cover.

Tempest will need to talk to placement for extra verification in Tempest tests. Verify only placement API working is not in scope
of Tempest.  Which is nothing but :

- Adding placement service clients with unit test coverage only
- Those service client will be added on need basis. We do not want to maintain the unused service clients. 
- Use those service clients to talk to placement for extra verification in tests. 

 >  
 > Which boils out to this: 
 >  
 > > I *think* that gmann's 
 > > question in the email was actually about placement endpoint support, 
 > > which is the former, and I think is probably legit. 
 >  
 > Yes. 

Great, we all are on same page now. 

-gmann

 >  
 > --  
 > Chris Dent                       ٩◔̯◔۶           https://anticdent.org/ 
 > freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent





More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list