Hi, David Thanks for your reply.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:37 AM, David Kranz <dkr...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/18/2013 09:34 AM, Masayuki Igawa wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I read the qa-meeting log[1]. And I registered a blueprint[2] for >> tracking and avoiding duplication. >> >> I think if we put "Partially Implements: blueprint >> add-scenario-tests-in-icehouse" in the commit message, >> we can avoid the duplication and tracking the scenarios. Because the >> commit subject and the link will be wrote automatically in the >> whiteboard. >> However, I'm not sure whether we can associate with multiple >> blueprints such as BP:lbaas-scenario-tests and >> add-scenario-tests-in-icehouse though. >> Is this make sense? >> >> [1] >> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/qa/2013/qa.2013-11-14-17.02.log.html >> [2] >> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/add-scenario-tests-in-icehouse >> >> Any comments and suggestions are welcome. >> >> Best Regards, >> -- Masayuki Igawa > > I think there could also be links to other blueprints either in the > whiteboard or main section of the blueprint. At the meeting we just said > there should be some way to get from the master blueprint to information > about each new scenario being created. > > -David I've added three links on the whiteboard of the blueprint. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/add-scenario-tests-in-icehouse --------------- * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/neutron-advanced-scenarios Advanced scenario tests for Neutron * https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/lbaas-scenario-tests Add advanced scenario tests for Neutron LBaaS sevice * https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56923/ zeroth version of l3 topology scenario --------------- Every developers can modify the whiteboard. So developers can add their scenario to this white board by themselves or automatically. I hope this BP could be useful for tracking scenarios and avoiding duplicate development. Best Regards, -- Masayuki Igawa > > >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I've pushed https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56923/ trying to follow this >>> protocol. >>> >>> Salvatore >>> >>> >>> On 14 November 2013 16:38, Zhi Kun Liu <liuzhi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1, This is a great idea. We could consider it as a general process for >>>> all tests. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/11/14 Koderer, Marc <m.kode...@telekom.de> >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I think we have quite the same issue with the neutron testing. I >>>>> already put it on the agenda for the QA meeting for today. >>>>> Let's make it to a general topic. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Marc >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: Giulio Fidente [gfide...@redhat.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:23 AM >>>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Tracking development of scenario >>>>> tests >>>>> >>>>> On 11/14/2013 12:24 AM, David Kranz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Developer checks in the zeroth version of a scenario test as work >>>>>> in >>>>>> progress. It contains a description of the test, and possibly work >>>>>> items. This will "claim" the area of the proposed scenario to avoid >>>>>> duplication and allow others to comment through gerrit. >>>>>> 2. The developer pushes new versions, removing work in progress if the >>>>>> code is in working state and a review is desired and/or others will be >>>>>> contributing to the scenario. >>>>>> 3. When finished, any process-oriented content such as progress >>>>>> tracking >>>>>> is removed and the test is ready for final review. >>>>> >>>>> +1 , the description will eventually contribute to documenting the >>>>> scenarios >>>>> >>>>> yet the submitter (step 1) remains in charge of adding to the draft the >>>>> reviewers >>>>> >>>>> how about we map at least one volunteer to each service (via the >>>>> HACKING >>>>> file) and ask submitters to add such a person as reviewer of its drafts >>>>> when the tests touch the service? this should help avoid tests >>>>> duplication. >>>>> >>>>> I very much like the idea of using gerrit for this >>>>> -- >>>>> Giulio Fidente >>>>> GPG KEY: 08D733BA | IRC: giulivo >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Masayuki Igawa _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev