Open Stack

On 03/06/2016 09:35 PM, John Griffith wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jay S. Bryant <jsbryant at electronicjungle.net
>> wrote:
> 
>> Ivan,
>>
>> I agree that our testing needs improvement.  Thanks for starting this
>> thread.
>>
>> With regards to adding a hacking check for tests that run too long ... are
>> you thinking that we would have a timer that checks or long running jobs or
>> something that checks for long sleeps in the testing code?  Just curious
>> your ideas for tackling that situation.  Would be interested in helping
>> with that, perhaps.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Jay
>>
>>
>> On 03/02/2016 05:25 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.
>>
>>
>> [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/
>>
>>
>>
>> ​We could just parse out the tox slowest tests output we already have.  Do
> something like pylint where we look at existing/current slowest test and
> balk if that's exceeded.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> John​
> 

I'm not really sure that writing a "hacking" check for this is a
worthwhile investment.  (It's not a hacking check really, but something
more like what you're describing, but that's beside the point.)

We should just be looking for large, complex unit tests in review, and
the ones that we already have should be moving towards the functional
test area anyway.

So what would the objective here be exactly?