On 09/04/2014 11:32 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Yes, I already did this in a previous (snipped) portion of this email
thread. See here:
yay for multi-month-crossing ML threads ;)
This is also further complicated by the fact that all heat functional tests
also test integration of the various underlying services to some extent.
Yes, as acknowledged in above post -- but Heat is special in this
regard, as mentioned in the post above. Functional tests for Heat are
not the same as functional tests for Nova, Keystone, Glance, Swift, etc.
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.
OK, that's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Would the Heat
functional^Wintegration tests then only test the latest version of the APIs?
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.
Well, that's where things get interesting. Functional tests in Glance
and Nova, for instance, are functional tests, not integration tests,
because they specifically do NOT test things like authentication -- i.e.
the interaction between Nova/Glance and Keystone. The Nova functional
tests likewise do not test the interaction between Nova and Glance, nor
Nova and the underlying hypervisor, as those layers are both faked out
in the functional Nova tests.
As I mentioned in the above post, though, Heat is different. In order
for Heat to really have a worthwhile functional test, it would have to
fake out every single OpenStack service, since Heat itself does little
more than provide an orchestration REST API and template format that
itself calls other OpenStack services. And it is for this reason that I
believe functional tests for Heat belong in Tempest, since Tempest tests
assume a working OpenStack environment already, and there's no reason to
either fake out all the OpenStack services, nor any reason to develop a
separate integration testing framework inside of Heat that does the same
things that Tempest does.
For Glance functional tests, they are testing the communication channels
between the Glance API service and the Glance registry service. For Nova
functional tests, they are testing the communication channels between
the Nova API, Nova conductor, Nova scheduler and Nova compute services.
Heat does not have these internal interfaces to test communications for,
and this is why I don't think an in-Heat-tree functional test suite is
worth bothering with versus the (yes, frustrating) process of adding
tempest Heat tests.
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.
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev mailing list