Open Stack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Malini Kamalambal [mailto:malini.kamalambal at RACKSPACE.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:13 PM
> 
> 'project specific functional testing' in the Marconi context is
> treating
> Marconi as a complete system, making Marconi API calls & verifying the
> response - just like an end user would, but without keystone. If one of
> these tests fail, it is because there is a bug in the Marconi code ,
> and
> not because its interaction with Keystone caused it to fail.
> 
> "That being said there are certain cases where having a project
> specific
> functional test makes sense. For example swift has a functional test
> job
> that
> starts swift in devstack. But, those things are normally handled on a
> per
> case
> basis. In general if the project is meant to be part of the larger
> OpenStack
> ecosystem then Tempest is the place to put functional testing. That way
> you know
> it works with all of the other components. The thing is in openstack
> what
> seems
> like a project isolated functional test almost always involves another
> project
> in real use cases. (for example keystone auth with api requests)
> 
> "
> 
> One of the concerns we heard in the review was 'having the functional
> tests elsewhere (I.e within the project itself) does not count and they
> have to be in Tempest'.
> This has made us as a team wonder if we should migrate all our
> functional
> tests to Tempest.
> But from Matt's response, I think it is reasonable to continue in our
> current path & have the functional tests in Marconi coexist  along with
> the tests in Tempest.
> 

I think that what is being asked, really is that the functional tests could be a single set of tests that would become a part of the tempest repository and that these tests would have an ENV variable as part of the configuration that would allow either "no Keystone" or "Keystone" or some such, if that is the only configuration issue that separates running the tests isolated vs. integrated.  The functional tests need to be as much as possible a single set of tests to reduce duplication and remove the likelihood of two sets getting out of sync with each other/development.  If they only run in the integrated environment, that's ok, but if you want to run them isolated to make debugging easier, then it should be a configuration option and a separate test job.

So, if my assumptions are correct, QA only requires functional tests for integrated runs, but if the project QAs/Devs want to run isolated for dev and devtest purposes, more power to them.  Just keep it a single set of functional tests and put them in the Tempest repository so that if a failure happens, anyone can find the test and do the debug work without digging into a separate project repository.

Hopefully, the tests as designed could easily take a new configuration directive and a short bit of work with OS QA will get the integrated FTs working as well as the isolated ones.

--Rocky

> On 3/20/14 1:59 PM, "Matthew Treinish" <mtreinish at kortar.org> wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:35:15AM +0000, Malini Kamalambal wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I have been working on adding tests in Tempest for Marconi, for the
> >>last few months.
> >> While there are many amazing people to work with, the process has
> been
> >>more difficult than I expected.
> >>
> >> Couple of pain-points and suggestions to make the process easier for
> >>myself & future contributors.
> >>
> >> 1. The QA requirements for a project to graduate needs details
> beyond
> >>the "Project must have a *basic* devstack-gate job set up"
> >> 2. The scope of Tempest needs clarification  - what tests should be
> in
> >>Tempest vs. in the individual projects? Or should they be in both
> >>tempest and the project?
> >>
> >> See details below.
> >>
> >> 1. There is little documentation on graduation requirement from a QA
> >>perspective beyond 'Project must have a basic devstack-gate job set
> up'.
> >>
> >> As a result, I hear different interpretations on what a basic
> devstack
> >>gate job is.
> >> This topic was discussed in one of the QA meetings a few weeks back
> [1].
> >> Based on the discussion there, having a basic job - such as one that
> >>will let us know 'if a keystone change broke marconi' was  good
> enough.
> >> My efforts in getting Marconi meet graduation requirements w.r.t
> >>Tempest was based on the above discussion.
> >>
> >> However, my conversations with the TC during Marconi's graduation
> >>review  lead me to believe that these requirements aren't yet
> formalized.
> >> We were told that we needed to have more test coverage in tempest, &
> >>having them elsewhere (i.e. functional tests in the Marconi project
> >>itself) was not good enough.
> >
> >So having only looked at the Marconi ML thread and not the actual TC
> >meeting
> >minutes I might be missing the whole picture. But, from what I saw
> when I
> >looked
> >at both a marconi commit and a tempest commit is that there is no
> gating
> >marconi
> >devstack-gate job on marconi commits. It's only non-voting in the
> check
> >pipeline.
> >Additionally, there isn't a non-voting job on tempest or devstack-
> gate.
> >For
> >example, look at how savanna has it's tempest jobs setup and this is
> what
> >marconi
> >needs to have.
> >
> >>
> >> I will never debate the value of having good test coverage - after
> all
> >>I define myself professionally as a QA ;)
> >> I am proud of the unit and functional test suites & the test
> coverage
> >>we have in Marconi [2].
> >> Marconi team is continuing its efforts in this direction.
> >> We are looking forward to adding more tests in Tempest and making
> sure
> >>Marconi is in par with the community standards.
> >>
> >> But what frustrates me is that the test requirements seem to evolve,
> >>catching  new contributors by surprise.
> >>
> >> It will really help to have these requirements documented in detail
> -
> >>answering at least the following questions,
> >> a. What tests are needed to graduate - API, Scenario, CLI?
> >> b. How much coverage is good enough to graduate?
> >>
> >> That will make sure that contributors focus their time & energy in
> the
> >>right direction.
> >> I am willing to lead the effort to document the QA-level graduation
> >>requirements for a project and help solidify them.
> >
> >Testing contributions will always be an iterative process. The actual
> test
> >coverage doesn't matter as much up front. The graduation requirement
> as I
> >understood it was just to have the glue in place and to verify that
> >everything
> >runs. As long as there is steady contribution and interaction from the
> >marconi
> >community with tempest IMO that matters far more then actually having
> >complete
> >coverage upfront.
> >
> >>
> >> 2. Clarify the scope of Tempest  - what tests should be in Tempest
> vs
> >>in the individual projects ?
> >>
> >> It sounds like the scope of tempest is to make sure that,
> >> a. Projects are functionally tested (AND)
> >> b. Openstack components (a.k.a projects) do not have integration
> issues.
> >>
> >> Assuming my understanding is correct, does it make sense to have the
> >>project specific functional tests in Tempest?
> >> Troubleshooting failures related to project specific functionality
> >>requires deep understanding of the individual projects.
> >> Isn't it better to leave it to the individual projects to make sure
> >>that they are functional?
> >> That will help the contributors to Tempest spend their time on what
> >>only Tempest can do -i.e. identify integration issues.
> >
> >What do you mean by project specific functional testing? What makes
> >debugging
> >a marconi failure in a tempest gate job any more involved than
> debugging a
> >nova or neutron failure? Part of the point of having an integrated
> gate is
> >saying that the project works well with all the others in OpenStack.
> IMO
> >that's
> >not just in project functionality but also in community. When there is
> an
> >issue
> >with a gate job everyone comes together to work on it. For example if
> you
> >have
> >a keystone patch that breaks a marconi test in check there is open
> >communication
> >about what happened and how to fix it.
> >
> >That being said there are certain cases where having a project
> specific
> >functional test makes sense. For example swift has a functional test
> job
> >that
> >starts swift in devstack. But, those things are normally handled on a
> per
> >case
> >basis. In general if the project is meant to be part of the larger
> >OpenStack
> >ecosystem then Tempest is the place to put functional testing. That
> way
> >you know
> >it works with all of the other components. The thing is in openstack
> what
> >seems
> >like a project isolated functional test almost always involves another
> >project
> >in real use cases. (for example keystone auth with api requests)
> >
> >Now for the boundary between what kind of test belongs where isn't
> always
> >clear
> >and every project has a different rule of thumb on that. There really
> >isn't a
> >hard and fast rule for tempest on what's allowed as long as it fits
> >within the
> >criteria for the different test categories. It's handled on a per case
> >basis.
> >Honestly, though I normally recommend putting as much in tempest as
> you
> >can
> >because a big advantage of having an external test suite is that it
> keeps
> >you
> >honest because the tests are in a separate repo.
> >
> >-Matt Treinish
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >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