On 10/29/2014 12:30 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Before we start the larger discussion at summit next week about the future of
> testing in OpenStack - specifically about spinning up functional testing and 
> how
> it relates to tempest - I would like to share some of my thoughts on how we 
> can
> get things started and how I think they'll eventually come together.
> Currently in tempest we have a large number of tests (mostly api-focused)
> which are probably a better fit for a project's functional test suite. The 
> best
> example I can think of is the nova flavors tests. Validation of flavor
> manipulation doesn't need to run in the integrated test suite on every commit 
> to
> every project because it only requires Nova. A simple win for initiating 
> in-tree
> functional testing would be to move these kinds of tests into the projects and
> run the tests from the project repos instead of from tempest.
I think a lot of the negative API testing is also a great thing to be
done back at the project level. All of that testing should be able to
work without a full OpenStack, as it should be caught and managed by the
API service and never get any further than that.

> This would have the advantage of making tempest slimmer for every project
> and begin the process of getting projects to take responsibility for their
> functional testing rather than relying on tempest. As tests are moved tempest
> can start to become the integration test suite it was meant to be. It would
> retain only tests that involve multiple projects and stop being the OpenStack
> black box testing suite. I think that this is the right direction for tempest
> moving forward, especially as we move to having project-specific functional
> testing.
> Doing this migration is dependent on some refactors in tempest and moving
> the required bits to tempest-lib so they can be easily consumed by the
> other projects. This will be discussed at summit, is being planned
> for implementation this cycle, and is similar to what is currently in progress
> for the cli tests.
> The only reason this testing existed in tempest in the first place was as
> mechanism to block and then add friction against breaking api changes. 
> Tempest's
> api testing has been been pretty successful at achieving these goals. We'll 
> want
> to ensure that migrated tests retain these characteristics. If we are using
> clients from tempest-lib we should get this automatically since to break
> the api you'd have to change the api client. Another option proposed was to
> introduce a hacking rule that would block changes to api tests at the same 
> time
> other code was being changed.
> There is also a concern for external consumers of tempest if we move the tests
> out of the tempest tree (I'm thinking refstack). I think the solution is
> to maintain a load_tests discovery method inside of tempest or elsewhere that
> will run the appropriate tests from the other repos for something like 
> refstack.
> Assuming that things are built in a compatible way using the same framework 
> then
> running the tests from separate repos should be a simple matter of pointing 
> the
> test runner in the right direction.
I think we can see where this takes us. I'm still skeptical of cross
project loading of tests because it's often quite fragile. However, if
you look at what refstack did they had a giant evaluation of all of
tempest and pruned a bunch of stuff out. I would imagine maybe there is
a conversation there about tests that refstack feels are important to
stay in Tempest for their validation reasons. I think having a few paths
that are tested both in Tempest and in project functional tests is not a
bad thing.

But I think that's an end of cycle at best discussion.

Also, there probably need to be a few discussions anyway of
refstack/tempest/defcore. The fact that Keystone was dropped from
defcore because there were no non admin Keystone tests explicitly in
Tempest (even though we make over 5000 keystone non admin API calls over
a tempest run) was very odd. That is something that could have been
fixed in a day.

> I also want to comment on the role of functional testing. What I've proposed
> here is only one piece of what project specific functional testing should be
> and just what I feel is a good/easy start. I don't feel that this should be
> the only testing done in the projects.  I'm suggesting this as a first
> step because the tests already exist and it should be a relatively simple 
> task.
> I also feel that using tempest-lib like this shouldn't be a hard requirement.
> Ideally the client definitions shouldn't have to live externally, or if they 
> did
> they would be the official clients, but I am suggesting this as a first step 
> to
> start a migration out of tempest.
> I don't want anyone to feel that they need block their functional testing
> efforts until tempest-lib becomes more useable. The larger value from 
> functional
> testing is actually in enabling testing more tightly coupled to the projects
> (e.g. whitebox testing). I feel that any work necessary to enable functional
> testing should be prioritized.
Agreed. From a Nova perspective I'm going to be layering up some of this
functionality with existing in tree tools. We also have a bunch of
potentially needed functional tests based on what I found in bug triage
this fall. So the priority is going to be getting something working
right to nail the bugs in Nova first, then align where it makes sense.

I actually think the negative test generator code in tempest would be a
good candidate for tempest lib, and would actually work better with
those negative definitions in the project as functional tests.


> -Matt Treinish
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Sean Dague

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to