[openstack-dev] [QA] testing implementation-specific features not covered by OpenStack APIs

David Kranz dkranz at redhat.com
Tue Mar 3 18:53:55 UTC 2015

On 03/03/2015 11:28 AM, Radoslaw Zarzynski wrote:
> As we know Tempest provides many great tests for verification of
> conformance with OpenStack interfaces - the tempest/api directory is
> full of such useful stuff. However, regarding the #1422728 ticket [1]
> (dependency on private HTTP header of Swift), I think we all need to
> answer for one single but fundamental question: which interfaces we
> truly want to test? I see two options:
> 1) implementation-specific private interfaces (like the Swift interface),
> 2) well-specified and public OpenStack APIs (eg. the Object Storage
> API v1 [2]).
As Jordan said, these two are one and the same. One could imagine a 
situation where there was an abstract object storage api
and swift was an implementation, but that view has been rejected by the 
OpenStack community many times (thought not without some controversy).
> I think that Tempest should not relay on any behaviour not specified
> in public API (Object Storage API v1 in this case). Test for Swift-
> specific features/extensions is better be shipped along with Swift
> and actually it already has pretty good internal test coverage.
I agree, depending on what "specified" means. Lack of adequate 
documentation should not be equated with being unspecified for the 
purpose of determining test coverage criteria. This is partly addressed 
in the api stability document 
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines under " /*The 
existing API is not well documented"*/
> As I already wrote in similar thread regarding Horizon, from my
> perspective, the OpenStack is much more than yet another IaaS/PaaS
> implementation or a bunch of currently developed components. I think
> its main goal is to specify a universal set of APIs covering all
> functional areas relevant for cloud computing, and to place that set
> of APIs in front as many implementations as possible. Having an
> open source reference implementation of a particular API is required
> to prove its viability, but is secondary to having an open and
> documented API. I am sure the same idea of interoperability should
> stand behind Tempest - the OpenStack's Test Suite.
The community has (thus far) rejected the notion that our code is a 
reference implementation for an abstract api. But yes, tempest is 
supposed to be able to run against any OpenStack (TM?) cloud.


> Regards,
> Radoslaw Zarzynski
> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/tempest/+bug/1422728
> [2] http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref-objectstorage-v1.html
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20150303/0c3be9af/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list