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