[openstack-dev] [qa] Tempest review and development priorities until release
oomichi at mxs.nes.nec.co.jp
Tue Mar 11 14:12:56 UTC 2014
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Dague [mailto:sean at dague.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:02 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Tempest review and development priorities until release
> On 03/11/2014 09:48 AM, Kenichi Oomichi wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sean Dague [mailto:sean at dague.net]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:06 PM
> >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> >> Subject: [openstack-dev] [qa] Tempest review and development priorities until release
> >> Tempest has no feature freeze in the same way as the core projects, in a
> >> lot of ways some of our most useful effort happens right now, as
> >> projects shore up features within the tempest code.
> >> That being said, the review queue remains reasonably large, so I would
> >> like to focus review attention on items that will make a material impact
> >> on the quality of the Icehouse release.
> >> That means I'd like to *stop* doing patches and reviews that are
> >> internal refactorings. We can start doing those again in Juno. I know
> >> there were some client refactorings, and hacking cleanups in flight.
> >> Those should wait until Icehouse is released.
> >> From my perspective the top priorities for things to be reviewed /
> >> developed are:
> >> * Heat related tests (especially on the heat slow job) as we're now
> >> gating with that, but still only have 1 real test
> >> * Changes to get us Neutron full support (I actually think the tempest
> >> side is complete, but just in case)
> >> * Unit tests of Tempest function (so we know that we are doing the
> >> things we think)
> >> * Bugs in Tempest itself
> >> * The Keystone multi auth patches (so was can actually test v3)
> >> * Any additional positive API / scenario tests for *integrated*
> >> projects (incubated projects are currently best effort).
> > I got it, and I'd like to clarify whether one task is acceptable or not.
> > In most test cases, Tempest does not check API response body(API attributes).
> > Now I am working for improving API attribute test coverage for Nova API.
> > I think the task is useful for the backward compatibility and finding some
> > latent bags(API sample files etc). In addition, this improvement is necessary
> > to prove the concept of Nova "v2.1" API because the we need to check v2.1 API
> > does not cause backward incompatibility issues.
> > Can we continue this improvement?
> > Of course, I will do review for the above areas(Heat, etc) also.
> Yes, absolutely.
> I would count the API response checks in the Additional posititive API /
> scenario tests for integrated projects. I should have been clear that it
> also means enhancements of those tests that ensures they are properly
> checking things.
> I think these are the kind of changes that help ensure a solid Icehouse
I have got courage by your words.
Thank you, Sean!
More information about the OpenStack-dev