On 26/10/2013, at 12:01 AM, David Kranz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 09:10 AM, Sean Dague wrote: >> On 10/25/2013 08:39 AM, David Kranz wrote: >>> A patch was submitted with some new tests of this api >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/49778/. I gave a -1 because if a >>> negative test to shutdown a host fails, a compute node will be shutdown. >>> The author thinks this test should be part of tempest. My issue was that >>> we should not have tempest tests for apis that: >>> >>> 1. May corrupt the underlying system (that is part of the reason we >>> moved whitebox out) >> >> I really felt the reason we moved out whitebox is that OpenStack internals >> move way to fast to have them being validated by an external system. We have >> defined surfaces (i.e. API) and that should be the focus. > It was also because we were side-effecting the database out-of-band. >> >>> 2. Can have only negative tests because positive ones could prevent >>> other tests from executing >> >> Honestly, trying to shut down the host with invalid credentials seems like a >> fair test. Because if we fail, we're going to know really quick when >> everything blackholes. >> >> In the gate this is slightly funnier because tempest is running on the same >> place as the host, however it seems like a sane check to have in there. >> >> -Sean > OK, I don't feel strongly about it. Just seemed like a potential landmine. > I think this is something we want to test in the gate. But perhaps there could be a tag for these sorts of test cases that some people may not want to risk running on their system so they can exclude them easily? Chris _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
