Open Stack

Changing subject line to continue thread about new $subj

On 08/12/2014 08:56 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2014, at 12:00 PM, David Kranz <dkranz at redhat.com 
> <mailto:dkranz at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>> On 08/06/2014 05:48 PM, John Griffith wrote:
>>> I have to agree with Duncan here.  I also don't know if I fully 
>>> understand the limit in options.  Stress test seems like it 
>>> could/should be different (again overlap isn't a horrible thing) and 
>>> I don't see it as siphoning off resources so not sure of the issue. 
>>>  We've become quite wrapped up in projects, programs and the like 
>>> lately and it seems to hinder forward progress more than anything else.
>>>
>>> I'm also not convinced that Tempest is where all things belong, in 
>>> fact I've been thinking more and more that a good bit of what 
>>> Tempest does today should fall more on the responsibility of the 
>>> projects themselves.  For example functional testing of features 
>>> etc, ideally I'd love to have more of that fall on the projects and 
>>> their respective teams.  That might even be something as simple to 
>>> start as saying "if you contribute a new feature, you have to also 
>>> provide a link to a contribution to the Tempest test-suite that 
>>> checks it".  Sort of like we do for unit tests, cross-project 
>>> tracking is difficult of course, but it's a start.  The other idea 
>>> is maybe functional test harnesses live in their respective projects.
>>>
>>> Honestly I think who better to write tests for a project than the 
>>> folks building and contributing to the project.  At some point IMO 
>>> the QA team isn't going to scale.  I wonder if maybe we should be 
>>> thinking about proposals for delineating responsibility and goals in 
>>> terms of functional testing?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> All good points. Your last paragraph was discussed by the QA team 
>> leading up to and at the Atlanta summit. The conclusion was that the 
>> api/functional tests focused on a single project should be part of 
>> that project. As Sean said, we can envision there being half (or some 
>> other much smaller number) as many such tests in tempest going forward.
>>
>> Details are under discussion, but the way this is likely to play out 
>> is that individual projects will start by creating their own 
>> functional tests outside of tempest. Swift already does this and 
>> neutron seems to be moving in that direction. There is a spec to 
>> break out parts of tempest 
>> (https://github.com/openstack/qa-specs/blob/master/specs/tempest-library.rst) 
>> into a library that might be used by projects implementing functional 
>> tests.
>>
>> Once a project has "sufficient" functional testing, we can consider 
>> removing its api tests from tempest. This is a bit tricky because 
>> tempest needs to cover *all* cross-project interactions. In this 
>> respect, there is no clear line in tempest between scenario tests 
>> which have this goal explicitly, and api tests which may also involve 
>> interactions that might not be covered in a scenario. So we will need 
>> a principled way to make sure there is complete cross-project 
>> coverage in tempest with a smaller number of api tests.
>>
>>  -David
>
> We need to be careful about dumping the tests from tempest now that 
> the DefCore group is relying on them as well. Tempest is no longer 
> just a developer/QA/operations tool. It's also being used as the basis 
> of a trademark enforcement tool. That's not to say we can't change the 
> test suite, but we have to consider a new angle when doing so.
>
> Doug
Thanks, Doug. We need to get away from "acceptance test == tempest" 
while retaining the ability to define and run an acceptance test as 
easily as tempest can be run now. My view is that functional tests in 
projects should have the capability to be run against real clouds, and 
that in-project functional tests should "look like", and be 
interchangeable with, the api tests in tempest. The in-project tests 
would be focused on completeness of api testing and the tempest tests 
focused on cross-project interaction, but they could be run in similar 
ways. Then a trademark enforcement tool, or any other kind of acceptance 
test, could select which tests to run. I think this view may be a bit 
controversial but your point obviously needs to be addressed.


  -David
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org 
>> <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140812/efc1ceca/attachment.html>