On 4/6/15 2:52 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
On Apr 6, 2015, at 11:41, Mike Bayer <mba...@redhat.com
<mailto:mba...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 4/6/15 12:49 PM, David Stanek wrote:
Exactly. This is the direction I have been going. Functional tests
are written using the public APIs using the client.
I would also add that I don't like that the Keystone unit tests are
so database heavy. I would not want MySQL or ant RDBMS to be a
requirement for running the tests.
is that because you'd prefer that the unit tests were more isolated,
or just that an external service is being used?
I've done some work with extensive mocking of SQL databases;
specifically mocking at the ORM level. It is nice when you get it to
run, but it's also a much bigger job to write fine-grained mocks like
that, the mocks can be brittle in relation to the code they're
targeting, and you also need to come up with some solution to
actually functional test your database access code.
I tend to think that having a mysqld service running is the lesser of
two evils and you get a lot more code coverage by going all the way
out to the DB.
What David is specifically referencing is that we want our functional
tests to only require direct API access. There is almost no reason to
need access to the DB backend. We have many ways to perform isolation
where needed (tempest does a lot of this today).
The goal is to allow the functional test suite to run against any
keystone deployment (be agnostic to db, non-db, etc driver used). This
makes environment setup a separate concern the tests don't need to be
involved in/aware of. It makes our functional tests more useful for
validating a driver or configuration passes muster.
ah. for sure. I would think functional tests could run against a
backend that was entirely mock / file-based.
If there are legitimately cases we need to test a specific db function
in isolation we will make specific efforts to support it. Those are
apt to be the exception to the rule.
--Morgan
Sent via mobile
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015, 12:42 Morgan Fainberg
<morgan.fainb...@gmail.com <mailto:morgan.fainb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2015, at 09:20, Mike Bayer <mba...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 4/6/15 12:06 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Excerpts from Boris Bobrov's message of 2015-04-03 18:29:08
-0700:
>>>> On Saturday 04 April 2015 03:55:59 Morgan Fainberg wrote:
>>>> I am looking forward to the Liberty cycle and seeing the
special casing we
>>>> do for SQLite in our migrations (and elsewhere). My
inclination is that we
>>>> should (similar to the deprecation of eventlet) deprecate
support for
>>>> SQLite in Keystone. In Liberty we will have a full
functional test suite
>>>> that can (and will) be used to validate everything against
much more real
>>>> environments instead of in-process “eventlet-like”
test-keystone-services;
>>>> the “Restful test cases” will no longer be part of the
standard unit tests
>>>> (as they are functional testing). With this change I’m
inclined to say
>>>> SQLite (being the non-production usable DB) what it is we
should look at
>>>> dropping migration support for SQLite and the custom
work-arounds.
>>>>
>>>> Most deployers and developers (as far as I know) use
devstack and MySQL or
>>>> Postgres to really suss out DB interactions.
>>>>
>>>> I am looking for feedback from the community on the general
stance for
>>>> SQLite, and more specifically the benefit (if any) of
supporting it in
>>>> Keystone.
>>> +1. Drop it and clean up tons of code used for support of
sqlite only.
>>>
>>> Doing tests with mysql is as easy, as with sqlite
("mysqladmin drop -f;
>>> mysqladmin create" for "reset"), and using it by default
will finally make
>>> people test their code on real rdbmses.
>> Please please please be careful with that and make sure the
database
>> name is _always_ random in tests... or even better, write a
fixture to
>> spin up a mysqld inside a private tempdir. That would be a
really cool
>> thing for oslo.db to provide actually.
>>
>> I'm just thinking some poor sap runs the test suite with the
wrong
>> .my.cnf in the wrong place and <poof> there went keystone's db.
> The standard approach here is that tests based on the oslo.db
approach by default connect using a username openstack_citest on
localhost, which is then used to create databases of random
names. If you base your database tests on oslo.db, you get that
right now. This username/host/etc is also configurable through
environment variables. I don't see how my.cnf is involved in
this nor how it would impact someone's keystone database, unless
we're talking about tests that happen to load down and/or crash
the whole database server.
>
> spinning up a whole mysqld seems really heavy-handed and
unnecessary. Not to mention the tests run on other backends as
well such as Postgresql.
>
The reasons outlined by both Clint and Mike are why we won't be
attempting this until we are happy with our functional test
suite. But once we are happy dropping SQLite is on the table.
The way I see it the functional tests should be performed
against a real keystone server, even if it is one spun up for
testing specifically.
Per test db creation / other such stuff will be part of that
discussion.
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
