Open Stack

On Friday, 15 July 2016 16:42:22 CEST Hayes, Graham wrote:
> On 15/07/2016 17:10, Andrew Laski wrote:

> >> Tempest plugins are another example. Approximately 30 of the 36
> >> current plugins are using resources that are not supposed to be
> >> used, and are an unstable interface. Projects in tree in tempest
> >> are at a much better position, as any change to the internal
> >> API will have to be fixed before the gate merges, but other
> >> out of tree plugins are in a place where they can be broken at any
> >> point.
> > 
> > Has there been an attempt to elevate these internal interfaces into
> > stable and publicly consumable interfaces? Was there resistance to such
> > an effort?
> 
> When we have asked previously, we have been told that certain parts
> of tempest "are not really meant for plugins".
> 
> The main part that is used that is not part of the tempest stable
> interface is the base test class.
> 
> This is the bit that sets up credentials, clients, and other useful
> things.
> 
> There is a base test class in the tempest lib - but it is very sparse -
> meaning any project using it would have to re-invent creating users,
> resources, and clients.
> 
> https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/master/tempest/test.py#L203
> vs
> https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/master/tempest/lib/base.py#L22


This is a known situation, but it is being addressed right now. It's not like 
no one wants to have a stable Tempest interface, but it had to be cleanly 
built.
There is a spec and work in progress to make the client manager interface 
stable:

http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/qa-specs/specs/tempest/client-manager-refactor.html

So yes, almost existing plugins are using unstable interfaces right now, but 
again this is not meant to be the long term scenario.

Ciao
-- 
Luigi