My suggestion is that we stop merging new Nova v3 tests from here forward. However I think until we see the fruits of the v2.1 effort I don't want to start ripping stuff out.
The path to removing is going to be disable Nova v3 in devstack-gate,
when the Nova team decides it's right to do that. Once it's disconnected
we can start the removes. Because the interface wasn't considered stable
in icehouse, I don't think we need to keep it around for the icehouse tree.
-Sean
On 05/19/2014 07:42 AM, David Kranz wrote:
> On 05/19/2014 01:24 PM, Frittoli, Andrea (HP Cloud) wrote:
>> Thanks for bringing this up.
>>
>> We won't be testing v3 in Juno, but we'll need coverage for v2.1.
>>
>> In my understanding will be a v2 compatible API - so including proxy to
>> glance cinder and neutron - but with micro-versions to bring in v3 features
>> such as CamelCase and Tasks.
>> So we should be able to reuse a good chunk of the v3 test code for testing
>> v2.1. Adding some config options for the v2.1 to v3 differences we could try
>> and use the same tests for icehouse v3 and juno v2.1.
> While it is true that we may reuse some of the actual test code
> currently in v3, the overall code structure for micro-versions will be
> much different than for a parallel v2/v3. I wanted to make sure every
> one on the qa list knows that v3 is being scrapped and that we should
> stop making changes that are intended only to enhance the
> maintainability of an active v2/v3 scenario.
>
> With regard to icehouse, my understanding is that we are basically
> deprecating v3 as an api before it was ever declared stable. Should we
> continue to carry technical debt in tempest to support testing the
> unstable v3 in icehouse? Another alternative, if we really want to
> continue testing v3 on icehouse but want to remove v3 from tempest,
> would be to create a stable/icehouse branch in tempest and run that
> against changes to stable/icehouse in projects in addition to running
> tempest master.
>
> -David
>>
>> We may have to implement support for micro-versions in tempests own rest
>> client as well.
>>
>> andrea
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Kranz [mailto:dkr...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: 19 May 2014 10:49
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [qa][nova] Status of v3 tests in tempest
>>
>> It seems the nova team decided in Atlanta that "v3" as currently understood
>> is never going to exist:
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-nova-v3-api.
>>
>> There are a number of patches in flight that tweak how we handle supporting
>> both v2/v3 in tempest to reduce duplication.
>> We need to decide what to do about this. At a minimum, I think we should
>> stop any work that is inspired by any v3-related activity except to revert
>> any v2/v3 integration that was already done. We should really rip out the v3
>> stuff that was recently added. I know Matt had some concern about that
>> regarding testing v3 in stable/icehouse but perhaps he can say more.
>>
>> -David
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
