I think a robot tag of csit is fine, as is putting tests that are just for for aai under aai folder which you did so good.
The main reason i -2 the code is also not because of timeline but because of the 80% is not reusable even within other csit test cases. I would be extremely happy to see 279 models tested in robot but not as excited if each one comes with its own get customer method 😊 That said what we have existing in resources is certainly not anything i will claim is a perfect architecture so we can certainly enhance it to meet the needs of aai. It seems in your email you mostly have an issue with optional fields and relationship lists? If so sounds like the problem is the rigidness of the templating we have (which admittedly i built in about three hours) and is something we can look at. Also the version 11 is probably something that should be upgraded also. On Apr 5, 2019, at 2:53 AM, Keong Lim <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Brian, Happy to take advice on filenaming conventions. I suspect there could end up being many variations, i.e. one per API version and use case scenario. I know you made some edits for INT-896 recently and I don’t want to get in the way of that High priority bug maintenance. Is the strictness of the review due to the looming M4 code freeze milestone? If the testsuite code is frozen at M4, then perhaps it is better for AAI to commit robot test code to its own repositories, as new tests and documentation should be exempted from the code freeze. There are approx. 279 elements (or approx. 140 if you don’t count the container types) in the AAI schema of which maybe 10 are covered by robot testsuites at the moment, so there’s plenty more commits on the way. Look forward to more detailed reviews and suggested solutions. Thanks, Keong From: FREEMAN, BRIAN D [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 3:09 PM To: Keong Lim <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; FORSYTH, JAMES <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; ROSE, DANIEL V <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; LEFEVRE, CATHERINE <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: what is the architectural direction for ONAP testsuite repository? Sensitivity: Confidential I will review and give feedback. At a quick glance i see hard coded values like bbs and duplication of existing keywords that will be confusing Get Customer I think this is solvable but we do to look for opportunities to reuse and avoid confusion. I also think we might want to name scripts as csit_ or something to help clarify. Finally the bbs robot seems use case specific instead of a reusable regression but i haven't look closely since i am traveling. Btian -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#16487): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/16487 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/30919602/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
