[openstack-dev] [all] re-introducing twisted to global-requirements
jim at jimrollenhagen.com
Fri Jan 8 20:52:19 UTC 2016
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 03:39:51PM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 01/08/2016 02:52 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >>On 01/07/2016 07:38 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
> >snippity snip snip
> >>>We haven't made it a dep for anything yet, only added to g-r.
> >>According to Dims, not to g-r, but to u-c, right Dims? Not sure if that
> >>makes functionally any difference, though (pun intended).
> >Both. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/220268/
> >This thread was originally about twisted, which is added to u-c with the
> >introduction of mimic.
> Got it, thanks.
> >>>However, now that you mention that, a really ambitious goal would be to
> >>>add a rabbit interface to mimic, and functionally test the API server
> >>>(that it sends the right messages, etc). Another would be to mimic
> >>>(Neutron, Glance) and test Ironic by itself.
> >>So you would reimplement AMQP communication protocols using an in-memory
> >>data store for queues. Sounds like an even greater surface area for bugs to
> >>be introduced.
> >>>Last, I frankly don't understand why there's
> >>>such heavy opposition to the ironic team using an additional tool for
> >>Since you asked, I'll be blunt. This isn't a personal attack on you, Jim,
> >>a) Because it fractures the testing and QA processes used by upstream
> >>contributors that work on OpenStack projects by requiring them to learn
> >>another system -- and one that potentially would require them to understand
> >>a whole new surface area for potential bugs
> >I don't think there's a large risk of needing to dig deep into mimic,
> >and especially twisted. If this does prove to be a problem, I'm happy to
> >remove it. However, we can't even explore what it would be like, or how
> >hard we would depend on mimic, without mimic being in g-r.
> Sure, fair enough.
> >>b) Because it represents yet another RAX-driven divergence in the QA space.
> >>CloudCafe took essentially all of the RAX folks that were at one point
> >>working on Tempest and upstream QA and siloed them into a totally different
> >>organization, in true RAX fashion. Instead of pulling the OpenStack QA
> >>community along together, RAX QA continues to just do its own thing and
> >>there's still bitterness on the tips of tongues.
> >So, this isn't trying to replace anything. This is adding a different
> >way to run functional tests, that is *much* faster than standing up a
> >full ironic environment. This is helpful for developers that want to
> >quickly run tests before posting them to gerrit, people that need to
> >test in constrained environments, etc.
> I recognize it is much faster than standing up a real environment. And I
> recognize that running faster client tests is a useful thing -- as long as
> we can be confident that what is tested does not suffer from some of the
> issues I identified earlier (syncing with real API and introduction of
> greater surface area for bugs in the test platform itself).
> >I'm 100% against doing things like Rackspace did with tempest and
> >cloudcafe, and I wouldn't be supporting this effort if I felt it was
> >similar. Here's how this went:
> >* Lekha started working on OnMetal QA, with a goal of doing some amount
> > of upstream work as well.
> >* She's previously worked on projects (like autoscale) that interact
> > with OpenStack APIs, and seeing the need to test without a full nova
> > environment, built mimic.
> >* In talking with some of the other Ironic folks working on QA (from
> > Intel, IBM, more), she presented mimic as something that may be useful
> > for testing the client (and more). They (and I) agreed it was a neat
> > idea worth trying.
> >* Jay offered to help with the global-requirements patch as it's
> > something he's done before, and did the review grinding here.
> >* It finally landed, and lifeless asked me to bring up the Twisted
> > conversation on the list. Note that this is not the "is mimic
> > useful" conversation we're having now. Nobody remotely voiced
> > concerns about using a new test tool until this thread happened.
> >Please do let me know if any of that seems nefarious; I hope it doesn't.
> No, nothing nefarious there. Sorry for letting my personal frustrations
> bubble over into this.
> I am not blocking anything from going forward and I definitely am not asking
> for a revert of any g-r patch. Nor am I trying to obstruct you in your
> governance of Ironic.
> I was just raising my concerns as an OpenStack citizen and getting my
> opinion out on paper.
As you should; thanks for doing that. I'm eager to see how this goes. :)
More information about the OpenStack-dev