On 03/11/2014 09:48 AM, Kenichi Oomichi wrote: > > Hi Sean, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sean Dague [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:06 PM >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List >> Subject: [openstack-dev] [qa] Tempest review and development priorities >> until release >> >> Tempest has no feature freeze in the same way as the core projects, in a >> lot of ways some of our most useful effort happens right now, as >> projects shore up features within the tempest code. >> >> That being said, the review queue remains reasonably large, so I would >> like to focus review attention on items that will make a material impact >> on the quality of the Icehouse release. >> >> That means I'd like to *stop* doing patches and reviews that are >> internal refactorings. We can start doing those again in Juno. I know >> there were some client refactorings, and hacking cleanups in flight. >> Those should wait until Icehouse is released. >> >> From my perspective the top priorities for things to be reviewed / >> developed are: >> * Heat related tests (especially on the heat slow job) as we're now >> gating with that, but still only have 1 real test >> * Changes to get us Neutron full support (I actually think the tempest >> side is complete, but just in case) >> * Unit tests of Tempest function (so we know that we are doing the >> things we think) >> * Bugs in Tempest itself >> * The Keystone multi auth patches (so was can actually test v3) >> * Any additional positive API / scenario tests for *integrated* >> projects (incubated projects are currently best effort). > > I got it, and I'd like to clarify whether one task is acceptable or not. > > In most test cases, Tempest does not check API response body(API attributes). > Now I am working for improving API attribute test coverage for Nova API[1]. > I think the task is useful for the backward compatibility and finding some > latent bags(API sample files etc). In addition, this improvement is necessary > to prove the concept of Nova "v2.1" API because the we need to check v2.1 API > does not cause backward incompatibility issues. > > Can we continue this improvement? > Of course, I will do review for the above areas(Heat, etc) also.
Yes, absolutely.
I would count the API response checks in the Additional posititive API /
scenario tests for integrated projects. I should have been clear that it
also means enhancements of those tests that ensures they are properly
checking things.
I think these are the kind of changes that help ensure a solid Icehouse
release.
Thanks Kenichi!
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
Samsung Research America
[email protected] / [email protected]
http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
