Open Stack

On 03/02/2016 06:25 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote:
> Hi Team,
> 
> Here are my thoughts and proposals how to make Cinder testing process
> better. I won't cover "3rd party CI's" topic here. I will share my opinion
> about current and feature jobs.
> 
> 
> Unit-tests
> 
>    - Long-running tests. I hope, everybody will agree that unit-tests must
>    be quite simple and very fast. Unit tests which takes more than 3-5 seconds
>    should be refactored and/or moved to 'integration' tests.
>    Thanks to Tom Barron for several fixes like [1]. IMO, we it would be
>    good to have some hacking checks to prevent such issues in a future.
> 
>    - Tests coverage. We don't check it in an automatic way on gates.
>    Usually, we require to add some unit-tests during code review process. Why
>    can't we add coverage job to our CI and do not merge new patches, with
>    will decrease tests coverage rate? Maybe, such job could be voting in a
>    future to not ignore it. For now, there is not simple way to check coverage
>    because 'tox -e cover' output is not useful [2].
> 
> 
> Functional tests for Cinder
> 
> We introduced some functional tests last month [3]. Here is a patch to
> infra to add new job [4]. Because these tests were moved from unit-tests, I
> think we're OK to make this job voting. Such tests should not be a
> replacement for Tempest. They even could tests Cinder with Fake Driver to
> make it faster and not related on storage backends issues.
> 
> 
> Tempest in-tree tests
> 
> Sean started work on it [5] and I think it's a good idea to get them in
> Cinder repo to run them on Tempest jobs and 3-rd party CIs against a real
> backend.
> 
> 
> Functional tests for python-brick-cinderclient-ext
> 
> There are patches that introduces functional tests [6] and new job [7].
> 
> 
> Functional tests for python-cinderclient
> 
> We've got a very limited set of such tests and non-voting job. IMO, we can
> run them even with Cinder Fake Driver to make them not depended on a
> storage backend and make it faster. I believe, we can make this job voting
> soon. Also, we need more contributors to this kind of tests.
> 
> 
> Integrated tests for python-cinderclient
> 
> We need such tests to make sure that we won't break Nova, Heat or other
> python-cinderclient consumers with a next merged patch. There is a thread
> in openstack-dev ML about such tests [8] and proposal [9] to introduce them
> to python-cinderclient.
> 
> 
> Rally tests
> 
> IMO, it would be good to have new Rally scenarios for every patches like
> 'improves performance', 'fixes concurrency issues', etc. Even if we as a
> Cinder community don't have enough time to implement them, we have to ask
> for them in reviews, openstack-dev ML, file Rally bugs and blueprints if
> needed.
> 

Are there any recent examples of a fix like this recently where it would
seem like a reasonable task to write a Rally scenario along with the patch?

Not being very familiar with Rally (as I think most of us aren't), I'm
having a hard time picturing this.

> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/282861/
> [2] http://paste.openstack.org/show/488925/
> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/267801/
> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/287115/
> [5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/274471/
> [6] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/265811/
> [7] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/265925/
> [8]
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088027.html
> [9] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/279432/
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Ivan Kolodyazhny,
> http://blog.e0ne.info/
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>