Open Stack

The XML/JSON tests are able to share on the same setUpClass and tearDownClass or on an equivalent thing.

I am not sure about the testresources will be the final solution, but it definitely can be an evolutionary step.

If we want to use a non default TestSuite it MUST be in tempest, even if it just inherit a base class from testresources. 


----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Yeoh" <cyeoh at au1.ibm.com>
To: "All Things QA." <openstack-qa at lists.openstack.org>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:28:12 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-qa] On refactoring of base classes/infrastructure

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:03:21 +0000
Daryl Walleck <daryl.walleck at RACKSPACE.COM> wrote:
> 
> It seems like we could handle some of our complexity through
> aggregates and breaking things down into smaller pieces. I also think
> base test classes might not be the right term in some cases, as
> they're really more of high level fixtures. Just my thoughts, but
> here's what I sketched out.

Something to keep in mind is that if we go the
testresources/OptimisingTestSuite route (which I think we are, but I'd
like to know if we do have a consensus for this) then as I understand
things we'll need to factor out setUpClass and tearDownClass as they are
not compatible with OptimisingTestSuite and instead replace them with
fixtures (there is a testresources.FixtureResource). 

This means we can better share resources across classes but there is
some work required to convert what is currently done in setUpClass to
fixtures. I'm happy to work on this, I'd just like to know there is a
consensus to do so.

Regards,

Chris
-- 
cyeoh at au.ibm.com


_______________________________________________
openstack-qa mailing list
openstack-qa at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-qa