PM
To: openstack-qa-team@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack-qa-team] Devstack dependent tests
On 04/30/2012 09:24 AM, Karajgi, Rohit wrote:
> The coverage can be expanded quite a bit by having tests that perform certain
> 'white-box' actions such as updating DB entries, an
ack-qa-team-bounces+rohit.karajgi=nttdata@lists.launchpad.net]
On Behalf Of David Kranz
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:28 PM
To: openstack-qa-team@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack-qa-team] Devstack dependent tests
We should have as much coverage as possible. But since we have be
Kranz
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:28 PM
To: openstack-qa-team@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack-qa-team] Devstack dependent tests
We should have as much coverage as possible. But since we have been using
config file variables to control which tests to run based on configuration
(suc
We should have as much coverage as possible. But since we have been
using config file variables to control which tests to run based on
configuration (such as resize_available) it would be better to introduce
a new config variable rather than making people tweak the arguments to
nose. I also thi
I think what you mention is a good test. However, I wouldn't be able to run it
in most of my test environments. Maybe there should be an invalidate token
admin API functionality? I could see reasons for wanting it for functional
reasons, and would still allow you to write a test like this.
Dary
5 matches
Mail list logo
