Open Stack

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 03:36:20PM +0200, Jordan Pittier wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ghanshyam Mann <ghanshyammann at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > In Cinder, there are many features/APIs which are backend specific and
> > will return 405 or 501 if same is not implemented on any backend [1].
> > If such tests are implemented in Tempest, then it will break some gate
> > where that backend job is voting. like ceph job in glance_store gate.
> >
> > There been many such cases recently where ceph jobs were broken due to
> > such tests and recently it is for force-delete backup feature[2].
> > Reverting force-delete tests in [3]. To resolve such cases at some
> > extend, Jon is going to add a white/black list of tests which can run
> > on ceph job [4] depends on what all feature ceph implemented. But this
> > does not resolve it completely due to many reason like
> > 1. External use of Tempest become difficult where user needs to know
> > what all tests to skip for which backend
> > 2. Tempest tests become too specific to backend.
> >
> > Now there are few options to resolve this:
> > 1. Tempest should not tests such API/feature which are backend
> > specific like mentioned by api-ref like[1].
> >
> So basically, if one of the 50 Cinder driver doesn't support a feature, we
> should never test that feature ? What about the 49 other drivers ? If a
> feature exists and can be tested in the Gate (with whatever default
> config/driver is shipped) then I think we should test it.
> 
50? Over 100 as of Ocata.

Well, is tempest's purpose in life to provide complete gate test coverage,
or is tempest's purpose in life to give operators a tool to validate that
their deployment is working as expected?

In attempting to do things in the past, I've received push back based on
the argument that it was the latter. For this reason, in-tree tempest tests
were added to Cinder to give us a way to get better test coverage for our
own sake.

Now that this is all in place, I think it's working well and I would like
to see it continue that way. IMO, tempest proper should not have anything
that isn't universally applicable to real world deployments. Not just for
things like Ceph, but things like the manage/unmanage backend specific
tests that were added and broke a large majority of third party CI.

Backend specific things should not be part of tempest in my opinion. We
should cover those things through in-tree tempest plugins and our own
testing.
> 
> > 2. Tempest test can be disabled/skip based on backend. - This is not
> > good idea as it increase config options and overhead of setting those.
> >
> Using regex and blacklist, any 3rd party CI can skip any test based on the
> test ID. Without introducing a config flag. See:
> https://github.com/openstack-infra/project-config/blob/1cea31f402b6b0cccc47cde203c12184b5392c90/jenkins/jobs/devstack-gate.yaml#L1871
> 
> 
> > 3. Tempest test can verify behavior with if else condition as per
> > backend. This is bad idea and lose the test strength.
> >
> Yeah, that's bad.
> 
> >
> > IMO options 1 is better options. More feedback are welcome.
> 
> 
> > ..1 https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/block-storage/v3/?
> > expanded=force-delete-a-backup-detail#force-delete-a-backup
> > ..2 https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1687538
> > ..3 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/461625/
> > ..4 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-
> > April/115229.html
> >
> > -gmann