Open Stack

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:

> Before we start or proceed with the discussion in QA, i would like to get the nova(placement) team opinion on adding the placement support in Tempest. Obviously, we should not duplicate the testing effort between what existing gabbi tests cover or what going to be added in Tempest which we can take care while adding the new tests.

My feeling on this is that what should be showing up in tempest with
regard to placement tests are things that demonstrate and prove end
to end scenarios in which placement is involved as a critical part,
but is in the background. For example, things like the emerging minimal
bandwidth functionality that involves all three of nova, placement
and neutron.

I don't think we need extensive testing in Tempest of the placement
API itself, as that's already well covered by the existing
functional tests, nor do I think it makes much sense to cover the
common scheduling scenarios between nova and placement as those are
also well covered and will continue to be covered even with
placement extracted [1].

Existing Tempests tests that do things like launching, resizing,
migrating servers already touch placement so may be sufficient. If
we wanted to make these more complete adding verification of
resource providers and their inventories before and after the tests
might be useful.


[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/617941/

-- 
Chris Dent                       ٩◔̯◔۶           https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent