Is this something that OPNFV can help with? best regards Steven Wright, MBA, PhD, JD. [Tech Integration] AT&T Services Inc. 1057 Lenox Park Blvd NE, STE 4D28 Atlanta, GA 30319
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Margaret Chiosi Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 2:00 PM To: [email protected]; onap-discuss <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Question on test coverage in stability requirements On our use case call we got into discussion of regression testing. We do need to somehow understand if we are doing regression testing and in some sense code coverage based on this. Else not sure how we can add new features or use cases using new features in a release effectively. Stability testing of let’s say Amsterdam release features vs ‘dublin’ release isn’t sufficient. So I think it is important to know what tests are run for stability and if the coverage is large enough to truly test for stability, Thank You, Margaret Chiosi VP Open Ecosystem Team Admin: Sophie Johnson [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> +1 (908) 541-3590 Futurewei Technologies, Inc. Fixed Network Solution CC 400 Crossing Blvd Bridgewater, NJ 08807 (cell) +1-732-216-5507 [cid:[email protected]] From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Hunt Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 10:28 AM To: onap-discuss <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; onap-tsc <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [onap-tsc] Question on test coverage in stability requirements Hi All, During today's TSC meeting, a question was raised about the Platform Maturity (S3P) requirements around stability, specifically: • Level 1:72 hour component-level soak test (random test transactions with 80% code coverage; steady load) • Level 2: 72 hour platform-level soak test (random test transactions with 80% code coverage; steady load) (see: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Stability<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_Stability&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=PVu8DKytqBISpqDc36NHSA&m=l0ZcAyH2WjKtP356-GHUglIUGuCyDi1r5ywdfY2xuYU&s=lPWTxPYxSMl98F9PHV_OXB5LeH3zUiGCEAWIQLUAH_s&e=>) While this "80% code coverage" wording has always been there (since Beijing), it has not been tracked or adhered to in the context of this requirement. Rather, there have been code coverage discussions related to CII Badging requirements and the Developer Best Practices (https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Code+Coverage+and+Static+Code+Analysis<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_Code-2BCoverage-2Band-2BStatic-2BCode-2BAnalysis&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=PVu8DKytqBISpqDc36NHSA&m=l0ZcAyH2WjKtP356-GHUglIUGuCyDi1r5ywdfY2xuYU&s=fylWP2IlX3sdfzlZpR1BNecziXXKKtVraF9RvrENIN4&e=>). I believe the 80% wording in this requirement should be removed and code coverage should be tracked separately. Question: what would be appropriate wording to replace it with? Perhaps... • Level 1:72 hour component-level soak test (random test transactions exercising major code branches; steady load) • Level 2: 72 hour platform-level soak test (random test transactions exercising major code branches; steady load) Regards, Jason Hunt Distinguished Engineer, IBM Phone: 314-749-7422 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Twitter: @DJHunt -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#15218): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/15218 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/29573396/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
