The rest api is the default interface, and the client tools target that interface. Since the clients are cli more than python api, they can be used by any language that can use a shell. What exactly does reimplementing the clients for the sake of testing accomplish? Double the maintenance effort for the same result, imho.
Cheers, Maru On 2012-05-03, at 12:54 PM, Daryl Walleck wrote: > So my first question is around this. So is the claim is that the client tools > are the default interface for the applications? While that works for coders > in python, what about people using other languages? Even then, there's no > guarantee that the clients in different languages are implemented in the same > way. Tempest was designed originally because while it does use an abstraction > between the API and the tests, there is nothing to "assist" the user by > retrying and the like. While I think there's a place for writing tests using > the command line clients, to me that would be a smoke test of a client and > not as much a smoke test of the API. > > Daryl > > On May 3, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > >> However, before this can happen, a number of improvements need to be made to >> Tempest. The issue with the "smoke tests" in Tempest is that they aren't >> really smoke tests. They do not use the default client tools (like >> novaclient, keystoneclient, etc) and are not annotated consistently. > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
