First I really appreciate Jordan's work, and I always appreciate those who
really do something. If we don't have a begining, then we will never reach the
end.
I now sort out the problem as:
1) Do we need to refactory the Tempest scenario code? ------ yes
2) What if scenario refactory will affect many plugins which use scenario's
unstable code?
2.1) choice 1: plugins modify their code simply
* for simplified modification, one week is enough
* if plugins do nothing, then Tempest will not be responsible for
their gate failures after one week.
2.2) choice 2: scenario provides a set of "stable interfaces", and plugins
switch to use them.
* if many plugins use interfaces in scenario, then it may worth to
have a stable base of scenario(not the current manager.py)
* it will need more work in Tempest, but plugins will benefit from
it.
to sum up, Tempest should let plugins feel as comfortable as we can, but if
plugins doing nothing no matter what we do,
then they won't stop the pace of our scenario refactoring.
Zhufl
Original Mail
Sender: ＜[email protected]＞
To: ＜[email protected]＞
Date: 2017/02/27 08:32
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [QA]Refactoring Scenarios manager.py
Yea, there is no doubt we should refactor scenario tests but even those are
internal interface it breaks plugins. We can argue that plugins should not be
using those but before that tempest should have all required
interface/class/helper as stable interface for plugins. which is what scenario
tests refactoring is trying to do.
I agree with the process Andrea defined and we should follow the same.. If we
can put a deadline for projects to fix, we can speed up our work of
refactoring. I propose to keep refactoring patch for 2 week (including comments
fixes etc) and give time to plugins to fix and yes we will help them.
After 2 week of time, we do not guarantee about any plugin failure (with very
rare exception if interface is being used very widely)
Let's not break plugins (what we doing as max as possible) but we really need
each plugins helps on those. QA team fix plugins since starting and we have
submitted lot of patches for many plugins to fix them and many of them never
got attention or reviewed.
For such cases (which falls under 2 week of deadlines), yes plugins needs to
take full responsibility if any of the tempest interface break them.
-gmann
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Andrea Frittoli ＜[email protected]＞
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:49 AM Masayuki Igawa ＜[email protected]＞ wrote:
Hi,Thank you for bringing this up.Yeah, I understand your frustration. We
already have the document about our stable interface[1]. It says
------StabilityAny code that lives in tempest/lib will be treated as a stable
interface. This means that any public interface under the tempest/lib directory
is expected to be a stable interface suitable for public consumption. However,
for any interfaces outside of tempest/lib in the tempest tree (unless otherwise
noted) or any private interfaces the same stability guarantees don't
apply.------So we can change private interfaces basically. However, I also
assume that this document is not well known(or people just ignore it, though,
maybe). So I'd like to advertise this policy here, and discuss it (if the
discussion is needed.)
[1] https://docs.openstack.org/developer/tempest/library.html#stability
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 22:39 Jordan Pittier ＜[email protected]＞ wrote:
Hi guys,
So I have a problem with these 2 patches here [1] and here [2]. You basically
are blocking any attempt of refactoring manager.py. Refactoring that file has
been our number one priority for 2 cycles, and so far hardly no one stepped up
really to do the work, except me with these 2 patches. Let me remind you that
that file is a gigantic mess, an so are our network scenarios.
The manager.py file in the scenarios directory has no stable interface, and it
was never "advertised" so. That some plugins decided to use some private
methods (such as this _get_network_by_name) is unfortunate but that should not
block us from moving.
I agree this should not block us from moving, and as you mentioned we
definitely need to move and I appreciate the fact that you started the work!
So just to be clear, if we really want to refactor our scenarios (and we must
in my opinion), things will break for projects that are importing Tempest and
using it outside of its stable interface. I am not interested in being the good
Samaritan for the whole OpenStack galaxy, I have enough with the 6 core
projects and the Tempest stable interface. So guys, if you are and don't want
to go forward with [1] and [2], be sure I'll never touch those scenarios again.
I am not upset, but we have to make clear decisions, sometimes difficult.
We have no way to know exactly who's using unstable interfaces in Tempest, so
it's likely someone will have to change their code as a consequence of the
refactor.
But I think it's important that we are good citizens and advertise well what's
going to change, even if it's about an interface which is not declared as
stable.
[1] : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/436555/
[2] : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438097/
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:
[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
--
Masayuki Igawa
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:
[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Scenario tests will go through a significant number of changes as part of the
refactor and if every change risks to break someone's gate job it won't work.
I propose we proceed as follows:
- identify projects that import from tempest.scenario
- send a notification to the ML about the changes that are going to happen
- help the affected teams to identify a way decouple them from tempest scenario
code - most likely copy the relevant code in-tree
- meanwhile continue to work on patches for scenario tests but do not merge
them yet
This process shouldn't take long and be rather straight forward.
I already have some data from codesearch, I will send out the e-mail tomorrow.
Andrea
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
