Great idea and 100% agree. It'd be even better if maintainer can publish functional test results using their own back-ends on a regular basis (weekly/bi-weekly test report) to 'openstack-dev' mailing list.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Joshua Harlow <[email protected]>wrote: > 100% agree, its hard to handle these 3rd party type of drivers but I > think we need to find out a way that will test it in a way that doesn't > require having said 3rd party gear directly available. > > Could it be possible to have CI gating be blocked/tested by individual > subfolders of cinder. > > For example when the solidfire driver is modified, this would cause a > 'trigger' to say solidfire (via some API) that solidfire can respond with > back saying said commit works. > > Not sure if that’s feasible, but it does seem to be a similar situation > in nova, neturon, cinder as more and more 3rd party 'driver-like' code > appears. > > From: John Griffith <[email protected]> > Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List < > [email protected]> > Date: Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:44 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack][Cinder] Driver qualification > > Hey Everyone, > > Something I've been kicking around for quite a while now but never > really been able to get around to is the idea of requiring that drivers in > Cinder run a qualification test and submit results prior to introduction in > to Cinder. > > To elaborate a bit, the idea could start as something really simple like > the following: > 1. We'd add a functional_qual option/script to devstack > > 2. Driver maintainer runs this script to setup devstack and configure it > to use their backend device on their own system. > > 3. Script does the usual devstack install/configure and runs the volume > pieces of the Tempest gate tests. > > 4. Grabs output and checksums of the directories in the devstack and > /opt/stack directories, bundles up the results for submission > > 5. Maintainer submits results > > So why would we do this you ask? Cinder is pretty heavy on the third > party driver plugin model which is fantastic. On the other hand while > there are a lot of folks who do great reviews that catch things like syntax > or logic errors in the code, and unit tests do a reasonable job of > exercising the code it's difficult for folks to truly verify these devices > all work. > > I think it would be a very useful tool for initial introduction of a new > driver and even perhaps some sort of check that's run and submitted again > prior to milestone releases. > > This would also drive some more activity and contribution in to Tempest > with respect to getting folks like myself motivated to contribute more > tests (particularly in terms of new functionality) in to Tempest. > > I'd be interested to hear if folks have any interest or strong opinions > on this (positive or otherwise). I know that some vendors like RedHat have > this sort of thing in place for certifications, and to be honest that > observation is something that caused me to start thinking about this again. > > There are a lot of gaps here regarding how the submission process would > look, but we could start relatively simple and grow from there if it's > valuable or just abandon the idea if it proves to be unpopular and a waste > of time. > > Anyway, I'd love to get feed-back from folks and see what they think. > > Thanks, > John > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Regards Huang Zhiteng
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
