On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Robert Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > Radix points out I missed the naunce that you're targeting the users > of python-novaclient, for instance, rather than python-novaclient's > own tests. > > > On 3 July 2013 16:29, Robert Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> What I'd like is for each client library, in addition to the actual >>> implementation, is that they ship a fake, in-memory, version of the API. The >>> fake implementations should take the same arguments, have the same return >>> values, raise the same exceptions, and otherwise be identical, besides the >>> fact >>> that they are entirely in memory and never make network requests. >> >> So, +1 on shipping a fake reference copy of the API. >> >> -1 on shipping it in the client. >> >> The server that defines the API should have two implementations - the >> production one, and a testing fake. The server tests should exercise >> *both* code paths [e.g. using testscenarios] to ensure there is no >> skew between them. >> >> Then the client tests can be fast and efficient but not subject to >> implementation skew between fake and prod implementations. >> >> Back on Launchpad I designed a similar thing, but with language >> neutrality as a goal : >> https://dev.launchpad.net/ArchitectureGuide/ServicesRequirements#Test_fake >> >> And in fact, I think that that design would work well here, because we >> have multiple language bindings - Python, Ruby, PHP, Java, Go etc, and >> all of them will benefit from a low(ms or less)-latency test fake. > > So taking the aspect I missed into account I'm much happier with the > idea of shipping a fake in the client, but... AFAICT many of our > client behaviours are only well defined in the presence of a server > anyhow. > > So it seems to me that a fast server fake can be used in tests of > python-novaclient, *and* in tests of code using python-novaclient > (including for instance, heat itself), and we get to write it just > once per server, rather than once per server per language binding. > > -Rob
I want to make sure I understond you. Let's say I have a program named cool-cloud-tool, and it uses python-novaclient, python-keystoneclient, and three other clients for OpenStack services. You're suggesting that its test suite should start up instances of all those OpenStack services with in-memory or otherwise localized backends, and communicate with them using standard python-*client functionality? I can imagine that being a useful thing, if it's very easy to do, and won't increase my test execution time too much. -- IRC: radix Christopher Armstrong Rackspace _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
