Open Stack

Hi Matthew,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Treinish [mailto:mtreinish at kortar.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:36 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Branchless Tempest QA Spec - final draft
> 
> > > When adding new API parameters to the existing APIs, these parameters should
> > > be API extensions according to the above guidelines. So we have three options
> > > for handling API extensions in Tempest:
> > >
> > > 1. Consider them as optional, and cannot block the incompatible
> > > changes of them. (Current)
> > > 2. Consider them as required based on tempest.conf, and can block the
> > > incompatible changes.
> > > 3. Consider them as required automatically with microversioning, and
> > > can block the incompatible changes.
> >
> > I investigated the way of the above option 3, then have one question
> > about current Tempest implementation.
> >
> > Now verify_tempest_config tool gets API extension list from each
> > service including Nova and verifies API extension config of tempest.conf
> > based on the list.
> > Can we use the list for selecting what extension tests run instead of
> > the verification?
> > As you said In the previous IRC meeting, current API tests will be
> > skipped if the test which is decorated with requires_ext() and the
> > extension is not specified in tempest.conf. I feel it would be nice
> > that Tempest gets API extension list and selects API tests automatically
> > based on the list.
> 
> So we used to do this type of autodiscovery in tempest, but we stopped because
> it let bugs slip through the gate. This topic has come up several times in the
> past, most recently in discussing reorganizing the config file. [1] This is why
> we put [2] in the tempest README. I agree autodiscovery would be simpler, but
> the problem is because we use tempest as the gate if there was a bug that caused
> autodiscovery to be different from what was expected the tests would just
> silently skip. This would often go unnoticed because of the sheer volume of
> tempest tests.(I think we're currently at ~2300) I also feel that explicitly
> defining what is a expected to be enabled is a key requirement for branchless
> tempest for the same reason.

Thanks for the explanation, I understand the purpose of static config for
the gate. We could not notice some unexpected skips due to the test volume
as you said. but the autodiscovery still seems attractive for me, that would
make it easy to run Tempest on production environments. So how about implementing
the autodiscovery as just one option which is disabled as default value in
tempest.conf?
For example, current config of nova v3 API extensions are

 api_v3_extensions=all

and we will be able to specify "auto" instead of "all" if autodiscovery
is necessary:

 api_v3_extensions=auto

It would be nice to define it as experimental on the gate and check the
number of test skips sometimes by comparing the legitimate gate?

> The verify_tempest_config tool was an attempt at a compromise between being
> explicit and also using auto discovery. By using the APIs to help create a
> config file that reflected the current configuration state of the services. It's
> still a WIP though, and it's really just meant to be a user tool. I don't ever
> see it being included in our gate workflow.

I see, thanks.

> > In addition, The methods which are decorated with requires_ext() are
> > test methods now, but I think it would be better to decorate client
> > methods(get_hypervisor_list, etc.) because each extension loading
> > condition affects available APIs.
> 
> So my concern with decorating the client methods directly is that it might raise
> the skip too late and we'll end up leaking resources. But, I haven't tried it so
> it might work fine without leaking anything. I agree that it would make skipping
> based on extensions easier because it's really the client methods that depend on
> the extensions. So give it a shot and lets see if it works. The only other
> complication is the scenario, and cli tests because they don't use the tempest
> clients. But, we can just handle that by decorating the test methods like we do
> now.

Thanks again, I got current implementations are nice for avoiding unnecessary
operations against environments.


Thanks
Ken'ichi Ohmichi