----- Original Message ----- > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 17:53 -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote: > > (cross-posting)
> > > Instead of running the Pingtest, we would execute a Tempest Scenario > > that boot an instance from volume (like Pingstest is already doing) > > and see how it goes (in term of coverage and runtime). > > I volunteer to kick-off the work with someone more expert than I am > > with quickstart (Arx maybe?). > > > > Another iteration could be to start building an easy interface to > > select which Tempest tests we want a TripleO CI job to run and plug > > it > > to our CI tooling (tripleo-quickstart I presume). > > Running a subset of Tempest tests isn't the same thing as designing > (and owning) your own test suite that targets the things that mean the > most to our community (namely speed and coverage). Even giving up 5-10 > minutes of runtime...just to be able to run Tempest isn't something > that some of us would be willing to do. As I mentioned, you can do it with Tempest (the library). You can have your own test suite that does exactly what you are asking (namely, a set of scenario tests based on Heat which targets the TripleO use case) in a Tempest plugin and there is no absolute reason that those tests should add 5-10 minutes of runtime compared to pingtest. It/they would be exactly pingtest, only implemented using a different library and running with a different runner, with the *exact* same run time. Obvious advantages: only one technology used to run tests, so if anyone else want to run additional tests, there is no need to maintain two code paths; reuse on a big and proven library of test and test runner tools. Ciao -- Luigi __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
