Open Stack

Hi

So I'm not massively against the idea, but I would like to present some
potential disadvantages for consideration:

I have to admit to not being keen to using symlinks for the functional test
yaml files.  My main objection is maintenance as new openstack and ubuntu
releases occur and bundles are added and removed from the charm.

At present, without symlinks (apart from in the overlays), the bundle for
an ubuntu-openstack version is a plain file.  To remove a version, it is
just deleted.  If there are symlinks then the 'base.yaml' version
represents the one that the charm starts with (say bionic-queens).  And
then bionic-rocky is a symlink (perhaps with an overlay) and bionic-stein
is another symlink, etc.   However, at some point in the future
bionic-queens will eventually be removed.  base.yaml is the
'bionic-queens'.  So what is done with base.yaml?  Do we make it
'focal-ussuri' and change all the overlays?  Leave it as is?  Have a new
base for each Ubuntu LTS and work from that?

Whilst the current system isn't DRY, it does make it simple to see what's
in a particular test bundle for a variation.

Having said all of the above, it is a bit of a pain to manage all the
separate files as well, especially when there are changes across multiple
versions of the tests.

Thanks
Alex.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 5:02 PM David Ames <david.ames at canonical.com> wrote:

> FWIW, I have used sym links in a couple of charms [0] [1]. This seems
> like a perfectly rational thing to do. I suspect it could be leveraged
> even further as @Xav Paice  suggests.
>
> @Alex Kavanagh, I think this is a separate issue from mojo, as this
> primarily pertains to Zaza tests. Also, the build process removes the
> sym-links and creates separate files for us in a built charm.
>
> [0]
> https://github.com/openstack/charm-mysql-innodb-cluster/tree/master/src/tests/bundles
> [1]
> https://github.com/openstack-charmers/charm-ceph-benchmarking/tree/master/tests/bundles
>
> --
> David Ames
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 4:07 AM Chris MacNaughton
> <chris.macnaughton at canonical.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I think I remember that a conscious decision was made to avoid using
> > > symlinks for the bundles due to the hell that openstack-mojo-specs
> > > descended into?  Liam may want to wade in on this?
> > >
> > Broadly, this is one of the reasons I proposed submitting a review of a
> > single charm to be a practical example of what this would look like, and
> > how complex it would be. It should also help us, as a project, identify
> > if the repetition is enough that symlinks, or refactoring the library,
> > would be worthwhile.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>


-- 
Alex Kavanagh - Software Engineer
OpenStack Engineering - Data Centre Development - Canonical Ltd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20201006/9a30a6ad/attachment.html>