Hi all,

I don't know nothing about 'holywar' so I'm interested where it had place.
According to the fuel-client tests I think that it will be good idea to run
some integration tests on nailgun API to check if client really works with
nailgun and if it works as expected, but unit test can have mocks if it is
necessary. If we will have test run on nailgun we can be sure that even if
responses has been  changed, client can still work or when we add new API
our client realy works with API, not only with mocked responses.

Best regards,
Kamil Sambor

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Nikolay Markov <nmar...@mirantis.com> wrote:

> Hello colleagues,
>
> They say, there is some kind of "holywar" around the topic on if
> fuel-client tests should rely on working Nailgun API without mocking
> it. This is also connected with API stabilizing and finally moving
> fuel-client to a separate library which may be used by any third-party
> projects.
>
> I just wanted to start this thread so everyone can share his opinion
> on both Nailgun API stabilizing and further fate of fuel-client as a
> separate library (how they do it in OpenStack projects).
>
> Everyone is welcome to participate.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Nick Markov
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to