> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:02 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Tempest review and development priorities > until release > > On 03/11/2014 09:48 AM, Kenichi Oomichi wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] > >> 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.
I have got courage by your words. Thank you, Sean! Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
