++ The ugly monkey patch approach is still working fine for my downstream testing, but that's something I'd be happy to get rid of.
Something that may be worth considering is to have an abstraction layer on top of tempest clients, to allow switching the actual implementation below: - REST call as now for the gate jobs - python calls for running the tests in non-integrated environments - these would live in-tree with the services rather than in tempest - similar to what the neutron team is doing to run tests in tree - python calls to the official clients, so that a tempest run could still be used to verify the python bindings in a dedicated job andrea -----Original Message----- From: Sean Dague [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 July 2014 12:23 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [qa] [rfc] move scenario tests to tempest client As I've been staring at failures in the gate a lot over the past month, we've managed to increasingly tune the tempest client for readability and debugability. So when something fails in an API test, pin pointing it's failure point is getting easier. The scenario tests... not so much. Using the official clients in the scenario tests was originally thought of as a way to get some extra testing on those clients through Tempest. However it has a ton of debt associated with it. And I think that client testing should be done as functional tests in the client trees[1], not as a side effect of Tempest. * It makes the output of a fail path radically different between the 2 types * It adds a bunch of complexity on tenant isolation (and basic duplication between building accounts for both clients) * It generates a whole bunch of complexity around "waiting for" resources, and safe creates which garbage collect. All of which has to be done above the client level because the official clients don't provide that functionality. In addition the official clients don't do the right thing when hitting API rate limits, so are dubious in running on real clouds. There was a proposed ugly monkey patch approach which was just too much for us to deal with. Migrating to tempest clients I think would clean up a ton of complexity, and provide for a more straight forward debuggable experience when using Tempest. I'd like to take a temperature on this though, so comments welcomed. -Sean [1] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-July/039733.html (see New Thinking about our validation layers) -- Sean Dague http://dague.net
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
