Open Stack

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Lance Bragstad <lbragstad at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Excerpts from Andrea Frittoli's message of 2017-03-09 20:53:54 +0000:
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > I'm trying to figure out what's the best approach to fade out testing of
>> > deprecated API versions.
>> > We currently host in Tempest API tests for Glance API v1, Keystone API
>> v2
>> > and Cinder API v1.
>> >
>> > According to the guidelines for the "follow-standard-deprecation" tag
>> [0],
>> > when projects that have that tag deprecate a feature:
>> >
>> > "Code will be frozen and only receive minimal maintenance (just so that
>> it
>> > continues to work as-is)."
>> >
>> > I interpret this so that projects should maintain some level of testing
>> of
>> > the deprecated feature, including a deprecated API version.
>> > The QA team does not see value in testing deprecated API versions in the
>> > common gate jobs, so my question is what do to with those tests.
>> >
>> > One option is to maintain them in Tempest until the API version is
>> removed,
>> > and run them in dedicated project jobs.
>> > This means that tempest would have to run those jobs as well, so three
>> > extra jobs, until the API version is removed.
>> >
>> > The other option is to move those tests out of Tempest, into the
>> projects.
>> > This would imply back porting them to all relevant branches as well,
>> but it
>> > would have the advantage of decoupling them from Tempest. It should be
>> no
>> > concern from an API stability POV since the code for that API will be
>> > frozen.
>> > Tests for deprecated APIs in cinder, keystone and glance are all - as
>> far
>> > as I can tell - removed or deprecated from interoperability guidelines,
>> so
>> > moving the tests out of Tempest would not be an issue in that sense.
>> >
>> > The 2nd option involves a bit more initial overhead for the removal of
>> > tests, but I think it would works for the best on the long term.
>> >
>> > There is a 3rd option as well, which is to stop running integration
>> testing
>> > on deprecated API versions before they are actually removed, but I feel
>> > that would not meet the criteria defined by the
>> follow-standard-deprecation
>> > tag.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > andrea
>>
>> Are any of those tests used by the interoperability working group
>> (formerly DefCore)?
>>
>>
> That's a good question. I was very curious about this because last I
> checked keystone had v2.0 calls required for defcore. Looks like that might
> not be the case anymore [0]? I started a similar thread to this after the
> PTG since that was something our group talked about extensively during the
> deprecation session [1].
>
> ​Yes, it seems no Volume v1 and Keystone v2 tests usage in defcore
2017.01.json [0]​. But there are some compute tests which internally use
glance v1 API call [2]. But on mentioned flagged action- Nova already moved
to v2 APIs and tempest part is pending which can be fixed to make call on
v2 APIs only (which can be part of this work and quick).

​From options about deprecated APIs testing, I am with options 2 which
really take out the load of Tempest tests maintenance and gate.   ​

​But another question is about stable branch testing of those API, like
glance v1 and identity v2 APIs are supported (not deprecated) in Mitaka.
​As Tempest is responsible of testing all stable branch behavior too, Should
 we keep testing them till all Mitaka EOL (till APIs are in deprecated
state in all stable branch) ?​




>
> [0] https://github.com/openstack/defcore/blob/master/2017.01.json
> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/
> 2017-March/113166.html
>
> ​[2]
https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/defcore/tree/2017.01.json#n294  ​

>
>
>> Doug
>>
>> >
>> > [0]
>> > https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/assert_fo
>> llows-standard-deprecation.html
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> ______________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib
>> e
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20170310/0008cef1/attachment.html>