On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:42:17AM +1200, Steve Baker wrote:
> On 05/09/14 04:51, Matthew Treinish wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:32:53PM +0100, 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
> >>>>>> 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[1] 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 I view this as actually a breakdown in cross-team communication, with 
> > both
> > sides at fault. For example, for a couple of months we had an outstanding
> > meeting topic on heat testing which almost always no one brought up 
> > anything to
> > discuss, eventually I just dropped it because it was never used. Instead I
> > should have found someone to drive it forward. Or that the heat testing 
> > blueprint
> > hasn't really seen much activity and only has 6 patches linked against it.
> If I had been aware of the meeting topic I definitely would have taken
> advantage of it.
> > The QA team is also well aware of review latency issues, we have a few 
> > relief
> > valves to try and help with it, like a meeting topic every week dedicated to
> > reviews that need attention, and using review dashboards that prioritize 
> > reviews
> > which need extra eyes. We also use the blueprints to track and prioritize
> > reviews for efforts like bringing ramping up testing for a project. But if 
> > these
> > aren't used it's hard to know that things aren't getting attention. 
> > Honestly, I
> > think it's a major issue when the first I'd heard of this frustration about
> > reviews on heat patches was when I happened to notice an abandoned patch 
> > that
> > mentioned it.
> >
> > This case is actually why I'm planning on starting a QA liaison program 
> > soon so
> > there is point of contact to push forward these things. Looking at neutron 
> > which
> > had very little testing in havana and had ramped up the number of tests very
> > quickly was having someone driving that effort and attending both meetings.
> > Miguel Lavalle drove things forward by keeping on top of the patches in 
> > flight
> > and letting people in both QA and Neutron know when something needed extra
> > attention. I think the unspoken expectation from the QA team was that 
> > something
> > like this was going to happen here. Hopefully, having a person formally 
> > take on
> > this role in fostering communication between teams will be helpful in 
> > avoiding
> > these issues in the future.
> >
> A QA liaison program sounds like a great idea.
> >> So it was with some relief that we saw the proposal[2] 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.
> >>
> >> [1] 
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029661.html
> >> [2] 
> >> 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.
> > This is actually the opposite direction that things are pushing right now. 
> > The
> > API tests are viewed as being mostly project specific, and besides for 
> > causing
> > friction when attempting to make a breaking api change there isn't a reason 
> > to
> > put them in an integrated test suite. While the scenario tests mostly 
> > involve
> > cross-project interactions and would be outside the scope of project 
> > specific
> > testing. Moving forward the expectation is that tempest's api tests will 
> > mostly
> > move to the projects (once we have a solution to block breaking api 
> > changes) and
> > the scenario tests will grow.
> >
> This sounds fine in the long term, but Heat needs a comprehensive
> integration suite urgently, and developing them as tempest scenarios has
> not delivered that yet. Tempest reviewer bandwidth has only been part of
> the issue, not enough heat developers have been writing scenario tests
> either. This has been a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem since we never
> got to the point where there was enough existing scenario tests to -1
> any new Heat feature that lacked one. Another issue is that it has taken
> this long to get the devstack changes in which build a custom image
> containing the required agents, which many of our tests will require.
> The existing scenario tests have been forklifted into
> heat_integrationtests, and they can always be forklifted back again in
> the future. I would like to propose that we go ahead with the in-tree
> integration tests with a view to moving them back to tempest in the
> future. We could agree on a set of preconditions for moving them back.
> On the heat side the preconditions could be:
> - Good coverage of testing heat resources
> - An established process for insisting on new integration tests for new
> features
> On the tempest side:
> - An established QA liaison program
> - Completion of transition to tempest-lib and in-tree functional tests

So this is actually something that is very similar to something we discussed at
summit. [1] I don't have an issue with the model of developing tests in the heat
tree to have testing be more tightly coupled with development. It has several
advantages. Then we can do a graduation of tests into tempest when and where it
would make sense to run against everyone, and move heat tests from nova into
heat. However, I don't view any of this as a good reason to remove existing
tests from tempest now. Maybe as part of the tempest cleanup that'll happen
eventually some of the existing tests we'll find don't need to be in tempest.
But for right now there isn't really any evidence supporting that, especially
considering how limited heat test coverage is that would just seem like a
premature action.

I think what you've outlined for preconditions to migration makes sense for the
most part. But, I think it should be for migration either way, not just for
heat -> tempest. Because really when we're talking about test migrations we're
talking about trying to optimize our test load so that we're only running things
where and when they need to be.

I'm also not entirely sure what you mean by: 'Completion of transition to
tempest-lib and in-tree functional tests' I think you might have some
unrealistic expectations around what is happening here. We're not going to be
shrinking tempest scope in the short term, and I don't expect it will happen for
some time. When we have discussions about moving a large chunk of api test
coverage back into projects that's a *long* term goal. Several things will need
to happen before we can even consider working on an en masse migration of tests
out of tempest. (including having the discussion on what the procedure and
prereqs are for doing that, which is really a summit topic) Just one of which is
having the projects actually starting to spin up their own functional test
suites capable of doing the same class of api validation. Honestly I feel that
removing tests from tempest will probably start to happen at the end of Kilo at
the very earliest, but more realistically it'll be a L task. I can understand
this precondition being just the tempest-lib migration especially if your
in-tree heat tests are going to essentially be a mini-tempest. That will make
the migrations in either direction much simpler.

> >> 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.
> > So for the most part this may be true, unless you are considering cross 
> > project
> > testing and gating, which is what I think Jay's argument is here. Heat is 
> > in a
> > different position that almost all of it's functionality is dependent on the
> > other services. So if the expectation is to be running these tests in a full
> > OpenStack deployment essentially you'll be duplicating the role of Tempest. 
> > But,
> > by being a heat specific test suite you'll have symmetrical gating issues. 
> >
> This is touching on the limits of the gating infrastructure. We're
> already at the limit of available cloud resources to run an integrated
> gate, and the tests we'd like to write will by their nature consume
> quite some resources. There is a human limit too, some of our best folk
> are burning out on keeping on top of integrated gate issues.

Yes, I agree we're reaching resource limitations here, but that in itself isn't
a reason to abandon the system we have now. We've identified a set of problems
with our current methodology and have a plan to try and fix it but rushing to
implement it by removing existing things is not a good way to handle it. We need
to be targeted in how we change things so that we don't lose the advantages of
our current system in the process.

> There is a potential symmetrical gating issue, but in theory Heat is
> just consuming stable tested APIs. sdague has suggested we only run
> check-heat-dsvm-functional against heat for now, and any asymmetric
> breakages be reverted/fixed as they occur, and prevented from recurring
> in the test suites of the offending projects.

So I can safely say from experience that saying this and doing it are 2 very
different things. Every time we've tried doing something like this with having
asymmetry it's caused way more pain than anyone considers at first. Having seen
neutron break their gate for weeks at a time because of asymmetry. Or trying to
spin up a new gating test job that only runs on a subset of projects constantly
delayed because something else broke it. Although this might not necessarily be
a bad thing, I was just outlining it as a potential concern before. I actually
think this will probably be one way to stimulate better cross project

The counter example that's been brought up to get around this is having
"contract tests" in the projects to enforce stability on interfaces consumed by
other projects. However, I don't think for Heat this will work or scale too well
because it consumes pretty much all of the projects' REST APIs, which really
comes back to all of Jay's posts on this thread.

-Matt Treinish

[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-qa-functional-api

Attachment: pgpol31HdWoEr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to