On Oct 24, 2014, at 6:58 AM, Chris Dent <chd...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback Doug, it's useful. > >> WebTest isn’t quite what you’re talking about, but does provide a >> way to talk to a WSGI app from within a test suite rather simply. Can >> you expand a little on why “declarative” tests are better suited >> for this than the more usual sorts of tests we write? > > I'll add a bit more on why I think declarative tests are useful, but > it basically comes down to explicit transparency of the on-the-wire > HTTP requests and responses. At least within Ceilometer and at least > for me, unittest form tests are very difficult to read as a > significant portion of the action is somewhere in test setup or a > super class. This may not have much impact on the effectiveness of the > tests for computers, but it's a total killer of the effectiveness of > the tests as tools for discovery by a developer who needs to make > changes or, heaven forbid, is merely curious. I think we can agree > that a more informed developer, via a more learnable codebase, is a > good thing?
OK, at first I thought you were talking about writing out literal HTTP request/response sets, but looking at the example YAML file in  I see you’re doing something more abstract. I was worried about minor changes in a serialization library somewhere breaking a bunch of tests by changing their formatting in insignificant ways, but that shouldn’t be a problem if you’re testing the semantic contents rather than the literal contents of the response.  https://github.com/tiddlyweb/tiddlyweb/blob/master/test/httptest.yaml > > I did look at WebTest and while it looks pretty good I don't particular > care for its grammar. This might be seen as a frivolous point (because > under the hood the same thing is happening, and its not this aspect that > would be exposed the declarations) but calling a method on the `app` > provided by WebTest feels different than using an http library to make > a request of what appears to be a web server hosting the app. > > If people prefer WebTest over wsgi-intercept, that's fine, it's not > something worth fighting about. The positions I'm taking in the spec, > as you'll have seen from my responses to Eoghan, are trying to emphasize > the focus on HTTP rather than the app itself. I think this could lead, > eventually, to better HTTP APIs. I’m not familiar with wsgi-intercept, so I can’t really comment on the difference there. I find WebTest tests to be reasonably easy to read, but since (as I understand it) I would write YAML files instead of Python tests, I’m not sure I care which library is used to build the tool as long as we don’t have to actually spin up a web server listening on a network port in order to run tests. > >> I definitely don’t think the ceilometer team should build >> something completely new for this without a lot more detail in the >> spec about which projects on PyPI were evaluated and rejected as not >> meeting the requirements. If we do need/want something like this I >> would expect it to be built within the QA program. I don’t know if >> it’s appropriate to put it in tempestlib or if we need a >> completely new tool. > > I don't think anyone wants to build a new thing unless that turns out > to be necessary, thus this thread. I'm hoping to get input from people > who have thought about or explored this before. I'm hoping we can > build on the shoulders of giants and all that. I'm also hoping to > short circuit extensive personal research by collaborating with others > who may have already done it before. > > I have an implementation of the concept that I've used in a previous > project (linked from the spec) which could work as a starting point > from which we could iterate but if there is something better out there > I'd prefer to start there. > > So the questions from the original post still stand, all input > welcome, please and thank you. > >> * Is this a good idea? >> * Do other projects have similar ideas in progress? >> * Is this concept something for which a generic tool should be >> created _prior_ to implementation in an individual project? >> * Is there prior art? What's a good format? > > -- > Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent > https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent_______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackemail@example.com > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev