On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Michel Peterson <mic...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Through my work in networking-odl I've found what I believe is an issue > present in a majority of ML2 drivers. An issue I think needs awareness so > each project can decide a course of action. > > The issue stems from the adopted practice of importing > `neutron.tests.unit.plugins.ml2.test_plugin` and creating classes with > noop operation to "inherit" tests for free [1]. The idea behind is nice, > you inherit >600 tests that cover several scenarios. > > There are several issues of adopting this pattern, two of which are > paramount: > > 1. If the mechanism driver is not loaded correctly [2], the tests then > don't test the mechanism driver but still succeed and therefore there is no > indication that there is something wrong with the code. In the case of > networking-odl it wasn't discovered until last week, which means that for > >1 year it this was adding PASSed tests uselessly. > > 2. It gives a false sense of reassurance. If the code of those tests is > analyzed it's possible to see that the code itself is mostly centered > around testing the REST endpoint of neutron than actually testing that the > mechanism succeeds on the operation it was supposed to test. As a result of > this, there is marginally added value on having those tests. To be clear, > the hooks for the respective operations are called on the mechanism driver, > but the result of the operation is not asserted. > > I would love to hear more voices around this, so feel free to comment. > i talked to a few guys from networking-ovn which are now processing this info so they could chime in, but from what I've understood the issue wasn't given much thought in networking-ovn (and I suspect other mechanism drivers). > > Regarding networking-odl the solution I propose is the following: > **First**, discard completely the change mentioned in the footnote #2. > **Second**, create a patch that completely removes the tests that follow > this pattern. > **Third**, incorporate the neutron tempest plugin into the CI and rely > on that for assuring coverage of the different scenarios. > This sounds like a good plan to me. > > Also to mention that when discovered this issue in networking-odl we took > a decision not to merge more patches until the PS of footnote #2 was > addressed. I think we can now decide to overrule that decision and proceed > as usual. > Agreed. > > > > [1]: http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=class%20.*\(.*TestMl2 > <http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=class%20.*%5C(.*TestMl2> > [2]: something that was happening in networking-odl and addressed by > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/523934 > > _______________________________________________ > neutron-dev mailing list > neutron-...@lists.opendaylight.org > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/neutron-dev > > -- Regards, Mike
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev