Open Stack

Hi!

On 02/06/2013 02:21 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As some of you have noticed, the number of unit tests arose to above
> 3,000 with recent merges.
> The XML support is adding most of them, by doing something similar to
> what the API tests for Quantum v1 did (execute the whole test cases
> with both format).
> While I understand and support this approach, there are two things to be noted:
> - Unit test execution times have more than doubled
> - With Quantum v2 we adopted a slightly different approach, by
> separating API and DB tests. The formers tests (that we have for the
> core API as well as many extensions) are the ones aimed at validating
> correct serialization/deserialization. If we keep following this
> approach, we might be able to save a lot of format-specific unit tests
> for DB logic. From my perspective I don't think we will be losing any
> coverage - but I might be missing something fundamental.
> 
> I recall Aaron and BobK in recent posts were suggesting to move to
> parallel testing; this one of the first things we should address in
> Havana. In the meanwhile, let me know if you think we can do something
> to reduce the amount of resources used by unit tests.

Funny story - I just pushed the first patches to get Quantum on the
parallel testing train. (testtools is the first stage here)

https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/quantum+branch:master+topic:grizzly-testtools,n,z

I don't see any reason to wait for havana to get the testr work done -
it's not hard.

For havana (and I'd like to bring this up across the projects as a
whole) I'd like to add testresources and testscenarios to the mix, which
allow us to to more systemically some of what you guys have already been
doing via class inheritance - namely - define some generic tests and
then define a matrix of input scenarios that should be covered. There's
now way to get it done for grizzly - but for havana it should be a good
cycle's worth of work.

I'll schedule a design summit slot so we can chat about it.

> I am also noticing that the memory leaks which were reduced a lot
> during G-1 are hitting again, on low memory workers (2Gb); probably no
> new leak has been introduced, it's just that the effect of the few
> ones which were left it's now being felt more.