I put this in the review but will repeat it here. +1 to adding the dependency with the tests that you've written to require it when those tests have been reviewed and accepted. I don't have an objection to adding requests-mock as a test-requirement.
Carl On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Paul Michali (pcm) <p...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi! Need to get the community to weigh in on this… > > In Neutron there currently is no mock library for the Requests package. > During Icehouse, I created unit tests that used the httmock package (a > context-library based Requests mock). However, the community did not want me > to add this to global requirements, because there was httpretty (a URL > registration based mock) already approved for use (but not in Neutron). As a > result, I disabled the UTs (renaming the module to have a “no” prefix). > > Instead of modifying the UT to work with httpretty, and requesting that > httpretty be added to Neutron test-requirements, I waited, as there was > discussion on replacing httpretty. > > Fast forward to now, and there is a new requests-mock package that has been > implemented, added to global requirements, and is being used in keystone > client and nova client projects. My goal is to make use of the new mock > library, as it has become the library of choice. > > I have migrated my UT to use the requests-mock package, and would like to > gain approval to add requests-mock to Neutron. I have two commits out for > review. The first, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115107/, is to add > requests-mock to test-requirements for Neutron. The > second,https://review.openstack.org/#/c/116018/, has the UT module reworked > to use requests-mock, AND includes the addition of requests-mock to > test-requirements (so that there is one commit showing the use of this new > library - originally, I had just the UT, but there was a request to join the > two changes). > > Community questions: > > Is it OK to add requests-mock to Neutron test-requirements? > If so, would you rather see this done as two commits (one for the package, > one for the UT), or one combined commit? > > Cores, you can “vote/comment” in the reviews, so that I can proceed in the > right direction. > > Thanks for your consideration! > > > PCM (Paul Michali) > > MAIL …..…. p...@cisco.com > IRC ……..… pcm_ (irc.freenode.com) > TW ………... @pmichali > GPG Key … 4525ECC253E31A83 > Fingerprint .. 307A 96BB 1A4C D2C7 931D 8D2D 4525 ECC2 53E3 1A83 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
