Open Stack

2014-05-10 0:29 GMT+09:00 Matthew Treinish <mtreinish at kortar.org>:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:50:03AM -0400, David Kranz wrote:
>> On 05/07/2014 10:48 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
>> >Hi Sean,
>> >
>> >2014-05-07 23:28 GMT+09:00 Sean Dague <sean at dague.net>:
>> >>On 05/07/2014 10:23 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
>> >>>Hi David,
>> >>>
>> >>>2014-05-07 22:53 GMT+09:00 David Kranz <dkranz at redhat.com>:
>> >>>>I just looked at a patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90310/3 which was
>> >>>>given a -1 due to not checking that every call to list_hosts returns 200. I
>> >>>>realized that we don't have a shared understanding or policy about this. We
>> >>>>need to make sure that each api is tested to return the right response, but
>> >>>>many tests need to call multiple apis in support of the one they are
>> >>>>actually testing. It seems silly to have the caller check the response of
>> >>>>every api call. Currently there are many, if not the majority of, cases
>> >>>>where api calls are made without checking the response code. I see a few
>> >>>>possibilities:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>1. Move all response code checking to the tempest clients. They are already
>> >>>>checking for failure codes and are now doing validation of json response and
>> >>>>headers as well. Callers would only do an explicit check if there were
>> >>>>multiple success codes possible.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>2. Have a clear policy of when callers should check response codes and apply
>> >>>>it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I think the first approach has a lot of advantages. Thoughts?
>> >>>Thanks for proposing this, I also prefer the first approach.
>> >>>We will be able to remove a lot of status code checks if going on
>> >>>this direction.
>> >>>It is necessary for bp/nova-api-test-inheritance tasks also.
>> >>>Current https://review.openstack.org/#/c/92536/ removes status code checks
>> >>>because some Nova v2/v3 APIs return different codes and the codes are already
>> >>>checked in client side.
>> >>>
>> >>>but it is necessary to create a lot of patch for covering all API tests.
>> >>>So for now, I feel it is OK to skip status code checks in API tests
>> >>>only if client side checks are already implemented.
>> >>>After implementing all client validations, we can remove them of API
>> >>>tests.
>> >>Do we still have instances where we want to make a call that we know
>> >>will fail and not through the exception?
>> >>
>> >>I agree there is a certain clarity in putting this down in the rest
>> >>client. I just haven't figured out if it's going to break some behavior
>> >>that we currently expect.
>> >If a server returns unexpected status code, Tempest fails with client
>> >validations
>> >like the following sample:
>> >
>> >Traceback (most recent call last):
>> >   File "/opt/stack/tempest/tempest/api/compute/servers/test_servers.py",
>> >line 36, in test_create_server_with_admin_password
>> >     resp, server = self.create_test_server(adminPass='testpassword')
>> >   File "/opt/stack/tempest/tempest/api/compute/base.py", line 211, in
>> >create_test_server
>> >     name, image_id, flavor, **kwargs)
>> >   File "/opt/stack/tempest/tempest/services/compute/json/servers_client.py",
>> >line 95, in create_server
>> >     self.validate_response(schema.create_server, resp, body)
>> >   File "/opt/stack/tempest/tempest/common/rest_client.py", line 596,
>> >in validate_response
>> >     raise exceptions.InvalidHttpSuccessCode(msg)
>> >InvalidHttpSuccessCode: The success code is different than the expected one
>> >Details: The status code(202) is different than the expected one([200])
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >Ken'ichi Ohmichi
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> Note that there are currently two different methods on RestClient
>> that do this sort of thing. Your stacktrace shows
>> "validate_response" which expects to be passed a schema. The other
>> is "expected_success" which takes the expected response code and is
>> only used by the image clients.
>> Both of these will need to stay around since not all APIs have
>> defined schemas but the expected_success method should probably be
>> changed to accept a list of valid success responses rather than just
>> one as it does at present.
>
> So expected_success() is just a better way of doing something like:
>
> assert.Equals(resp.status, 200)
>
> There isn't anything specific about the images clients with it.
> validate_response() should just call expected_success(), which I pushed out
> here:
> https://review.openstack.org/93035
>
>
>>
>> I hope we can get agreement to move response checking to the client.
>> There was no opposition when we started doing this in nova to check
>> schema. Does any one see a reason to not do this? It would both
>> simplify the code and make sure responses are checked in all cases.
>>
>> Sean, do you have a concrete example of what you are concerned about
>> here? Moving the check from the value returned by a client call to
>> inside the client code should not have any visible effect unless the
>> value was actually wrong but not checked by the caller. But this
>> would be a bug that was just found if a test started failing.
>>
>
> Please draft a spec/bp for doing this, we can sort out the implementation
> details in the spec review. There is definitely some overlap with the jsonschema
> work though so we need to think about how to best integrate the 2 efforts. For
> example, for projects that don't use jsonschema yet does it make sense to start
> using jsonschema files like we do for nova tests to veriy the status codes. Just
> so we can have a common path for doing this. I think there may be value in doing
> it that way. We can discuss it more during the jsonschema summit session.

OK, I will add this as one of the session topics.

Thanks
Ken'ichi Ohmichi