hanahmily commented on a change in pull request #172: URL: https://github.com/apache/skywalking-website/pull/172#discussion_r545571540
########## File path: content/blog/e2e-design/index.md ########## @@ -0,0 +1,282 @@ +--- +title: "[Design] NGE2E - Next Generation End-to-End Testing Framework" +date: 2020-12-14 +author: "[Zhenxu Ke](https://github.com/kezhenxu94), Tetrate.io; [Huaxi Jiang](http://github.com/fgksgf), Committer; [Ke Zhang](http://github.com/HumbertZhang), Committer" +description: "The design of Next Generation End-to-End Testing Framework" +--- + +NGE2E is the next generation End-to-End Testing framework that aims to help developers to set up, debug, and verify E2E tests with ease. It's built based on the lessons learnt from tens of hundreds of test cases in the SkyWalking main repo. + +# Goal + +- Keep the feature parity with the existing E2E framework in SkyWalking main repo; +- Support both [docker-compose](https://docs.docker.com/compose/) and [KinD](https://kind.sigs.k8s.io) to orchestrate the tested services under different environments; +- Get rid of the heavy `Java/Maven` stack, which exists in the current E2E; be language independent as much as possible, users only need to configure YAMLs and run commands, without writing codes; + +# Non-Goal + +- This framework is not involved with the build process, i.e. it won't do something like `mvn package` or `docker build`, the artifacts (`.tar`, docker images) should be ready in an earlier process before this; +- This project doesn't take the plugin tests into account, at least for now; +- This project doesn't mean to add/remove any new/existing test case to/from the main repo; +- This documentation won't cover too much technical details of how to implement the framework, that should go into an individual documentation; + +# Design + +Before diving into the design details, let's take a quick look at how the end user might use NGE2E. + +> All the following commands are mock, and are open to debate. + +To run a test case in a directory `/path/to/the/case/directory` + +```shell +swctl e2e run /path/to/the/case/directory + +# or + +cd /path/to/the/case/directory && swctl e2e run +``` + +This will run the test case in the specified directory, this command is a wrapper that glues all the following commands, which can be executed separately, for example, to debug the case: + +**NOTE**: because all the options can be loaded from a configuration file, so as long as a configuration file (say `e2e.yaml`) is given in the directory, every command should be able to run in bare mode (without any option explicitly specified in the command line); + +### Set Up Services + +```shell +swctl e2e setup --env=compose --file=docker-compose.yaml --wait=for=service-health +swctl e2e setup --env=kind --file=kind.yaml --resources=bookinfo.yaml,gateway.yaml --wait=for=pod-ready Review comment: > Can you please elaborate more why we need this in a test case (Do the workloads matter)? NO. 2 and NO. 3 are from the same idea, that we should run a test case step by step. Deploy a manifest then wait or make sure all of the components are ready, then move to the next step. The benefit of this pattern is to split the focus, which makes contributors debug more easily. And you mention `command` option, which brings some flexibility but makes more confuses me indeed. In general, we need the deployment-wait workflow in command either, for example, after deploying SW, we have to wait for deployment and pod available. I tweak the example a bit to explain what I need : ``` setup: env: kind file: kind.yaml steps: - command: kubectl apply -f skywalking.yml wait: namespace: istio-system label-selector: app=skywalking for: deployment-avaiable - command: istioctl install --profile=demo -y wait: namespace: istio-system label-selector: app=istio for: deployment-ready - command: kubectl label namespace default istio-injection=enabled - command: kubectl apply -f bookinfo.yaml wait: namespace: default for: deployment-ready ``` All of the steps are sync or async. If it's a sync step, we could check the return code to verify the result, while in the async step we should leverage the async function `wait` to check the result is what I expect eventually. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
