On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:45:59AM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 08/29/2014 05:15 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: > >On 29/08/14 14:27, Jay Pipes wrote: > >>On 08/26/2014 10:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote: > >>>Steve Baker has started the process of moving Heat tests out of the > >>>Tempest repository and into the Heat repository, and we're looking for > >>>some guidance on how they should be packaged in a consistent way. > >>>Apparently there are a few projects already packaging functional tests > >>>in the package <projectname>.tests.functional (alongside > >>><projectname>.tests.unit for the unit tests). > >>> > >>>That strikes me as odd in our context, because while the unit tests run > >>>against the code in the package in which they are embedded, the > >>>functional tests run against some entirely different code - whatever > >>>OpenStack cloud you give it the auth URL and credentials for. So these > >>>tests run from the outside, just like their ancestors in Tempest do. > >>> > >>>There's all kinds of potential confusion here for users and packagers. > >>>None of it is fatal and all of it can be worked around, but if we > >>>refrain from doing the thing that makes zero conceptual sense then there > >>>will be no problem to work around :) > >>> > >>>I suspect from reading the previous thread about "In-tree functional > >>>test vision" that we may actually be dealing with three categories of > >>>test here rather than two: > >>> > >>>* Unit tests that run against the package they are embedded in > >>>* Functional tests that run against the package they are embedded in > >>>* Integration tests that run against a specified cloud > >>> > >>>i.e. the tests we are now trying to add to Heat might be qualitatively > >>>different from the <projectname>.tests.functional suites that already > >>>exist in a few projects. Perhaps someone from Neutron and/or Swift can > >>>confirm? > >>> > >>>I'd like to propose that tests of the third type get their own top-level > >>>package with a name of the form <projectname>-integrationtests (second > >>>choice: <projectname>-tempest on the principle that they're essentially > >>>plugins for Tempest). How would people feel about standardising that > >>>across OpenStack? > >> > >>By its nature, Heat is one of the only projects that would have > >>integration tests of this nature. For Nova, there are some "functional" > >>tests in nova/tests/integrated/ (yeah, badly named, I know) that are > >>tests of the REST API endpoints and running service daemons (the things > >>that are RPC endpoints), with a bunch of stuff faked out (like RPC > >>comms, image services, authentication and the hypervisor layer itself). > >>So, the "integrated" tests in Nova are really not testing integration > >>with other projects, but rather integration of the subsystems and > >>processes inside Nova. > >> > >>I'd support a policy that true integration tests -- tests that test the > >>interaction between multiple real OpenStack service endpoints -- be left > >>entirely to Tempest. Functional tests that test interaction between > >>internal daemons and processes to a project should go into > >>/$project/tests/functional/. > >> > >>For Heat, I believe tests that rely on faked-out other OpenStack > >>services but stress the interaction between internal Heat > >>daemons/processes should be in /heat/tests/functional/ and any tests the > >>rely on working, real OpenStack service endpoints should be in Tempest. > > > >Well, the problem with that is that last time I checked there was > >exactly one Heat scenario test in Tempest because tempest-core doesn't > >have the bandwidth to merge all (any?) of the other ones folks submitted. > > > >So we're moving them to openstack/heat for the pure practical reason > >that it's the only way to get test coverage at all, rather than concerns > >about overloading the gate or theories about the best venue for > >cross-project integration testing. > > Hmm, speaking of passive aggressivity... > > Where can I see a discussion of the Heat integration tests with Tempest QA > folks? If you give me some background on what efforts have been made already > and what is remaining to be reviewed/merged/worked on, then I can try to get > some resources dedicated to helping here.
We recieved some fairly strong criticism from sdague earlier this year, at which point we were already actively working on improving test coverage by writing new tests for tempest. Since then, several folks, myself included, commited very significant amounts of additional effort to writing more tests for tempest, with some success. Ultimately the review latency and overhead involved in constantly rebasing changes between infrequent reviews has resulted in slow progress and significant frustration for those attempting to contribute new test cases. It's been clear for a while that tempest-core have significant bandwidth issues, as well as not necessarily always having the specific domain expertise to thoroughly review some tests related to project-specific behavior or functionality. So it was with some relief that we saw the proposal to move the burden for reviewing project test-cases to the project teams, who will presumably be more motivated to do the reviews, and have the knowledge of what needs testing.  http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029661.html  http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-July/041057.html > I would greatly prefer just having a single source of integration testing in > OpenStack, versus going back to the bad ol' days of everybody under the sun > rewriting their own. > > Note that I'm not talking about functional testing here, just the > integration testing... You may have to define the terms functional and integration here, as IMO there's already significant confusion about what the target of e.g API and scenario tests in tempest are. This is also further complicated by the fact that all heat functional tests also test integration of the various underlying services to some extent. My opinion is that any tests remaining in tempest should focus on API correctness, e.g to keep us honest in terms of backwards incomaptible changes to the API surface. Then for all tests which aim to prove the functionality of the project, e.g my understanding of tempest scenario tests atm, we should allow project teams to own them, and add to them as functionality develops over time. Ultimately I don't think it really matters which repo those tests live in, provided we can write them and get them running in the gate (catching regressions, which otherwise keep slipping through) in a timely manner. Steve _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev