Team,

My two cents below:

1.      Dovetail is a generic test framework while robot framework is another. 
Dovetail is ideal for VNF certification testing and is currently used by all of 
the active OPNFV projects. Meanwhile robot framework serves some other users 
and scenarios. From VNFSDK’s perspective, we should allow and provide different 
options to users and vendors etc.

2.      Based on 1), I think it is reasonable that we have an 
integrator/manager available between marketplace and various test frameworks. 
This integrator/manager should address the functionality overlapping as 
mentioned in Victor’s proposal, and be able to let more flexible test 
frameworks/runners to plugin so that different tests can be brought in like 
discussed in Kanagaraj's proposal. However for the test framework 
“overlapping”, I guess it is more like a different choice related to different 
usage.

Thanks!

BR,
Kailun

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of Christopher Donley
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 8:19 AM
To: [email protected]; Gaoweitao (Victor, MANO) 
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [VNFSDK]VNFSDK Architecture Proposal

Thanks Victor.

Team,
As we discussed during our last meeting, we need to take a fresh look at the 
VNFSDK architecture, since we'll be using it for the compliance program and 
need to make it easier to incorporate new tests going forward.  I'd like to 
continue the discussion via email so that we can make progress before Friday.  
I'm attaching Kanagaraj's proposal, as well.

As I see it, Victor's proposal uses our Marketplace GUI to drive Dovetail, and 
all tests plug into Dovetail directly.  Kanagaraj's proposal is more similar to 
our current architecture, with more flexible test runners to bring in different 
tests.  I will refrain from offering my personal opinion for now because I'd 
like to encourage discussion.  Please share your thoughts on these two 
approaches (or if you have a different approach) via email.  I'd like to 
finalize the discussion during our Friday meeting.

Chris

From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on 
behalf of gaoweitao <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Gaoweitao 
(Victor, MANO)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, July 16, 2018 at 6:41 PM
To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [onap-discuss] [VNFSDK]VNFSDK Architecture Proposal

Hi, VNFSDK Team member,

                I prepare several for VNFSDK architecture improvement. As we 
discussed in last VNFSDK meeting, let we exchange ideas and review by email.

                Attached is the proposal, please let me know your feedback. 
This is also available on 
wiki<https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/VNF+SDK+07-13-2018+Meeting>.

                Thanks in advance.

BR
Victor


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11200): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/11200
Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/23538214/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub  
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to