On 03/02/2016 09:36 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote: > Eric, > > There are Gorka's patches [10] to remove API Races > > > [10] > https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/cinder+branch:master+topic:fix/api-races-simplified > > Regards, > Ivan Kolodyazhny, > http://blog.e0ne.info/ >
So the second part of my question is, is writing a Rally job to prove out that code a reasonable task? How hard is that to do and what does it look like? > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Eric Harney <ehar...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 03/02/2016 06:25 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote: >>> Hi Team, >>> >>> Here are my thoughts and proposals how to make Cinder testing process >>> better. I won't cover "3rd party CI's" topic here. I will share my >> opinion >>> about current and feature jobs. >>> >>> >>> Unit-tests >>> >>> - Long-running tests. I hope, everybody will agree that unit-tests >> must >>> be quite simple and very fast. Unit tests which takes more than 3-5 >> seconds >>> should be refactored and/or moved to 'integration' tests. >>> Thanks to Tom Barron for several fixes like [1]. IMO, we it would be >>> good to have some hacking checks to prevent such issues in a future. >>> >>> - Tests coverage. We don't check it in an automatic way on gates. >>> Usually, we require to add some unit-tests during code review >> process. Why >>> can't we add coverage job to our CI and do not merge new patches, with >>> will decrease tests coverage rate? Maybe, such job could be voting in >> a >>> future to not ignore it. For now, there is not simple way to check >> coverage >>> because 'tox -e cover' output is not useful [2]. >>> >>> >>> Functional tests for Cinder >>> >>> We introduced some functional tests last month [3]. Here is a patch to >>> infra to add new job [4]. Because these tests were moved from >> unit-tests, I >>> think we're OK to make this job voting. Such tests should not be a >>> replacement for Tempest. They even could tests Cinder with Fake Driver to >>> make it faster and not related on storage backends issues. >>> >>> >>> Tempest in-tree tests >>> >>> Sean started work on it [5] and I think it's a good idea to get them in >>> Cinder repo to run them on Tempest jobs and 3-rd party CIs against a real >>> backend. >>> >>> >>> Functional tests for python-brick-cinderclient-ext >>> >>> There are patches that introduces functional tests [6] and new job [7]. >>> >>> >>> Functional tests for python-cinderclient >>> >>> We've got a very limited set of such tests and non-voting job. IMO, we >> can >>> run them even with Cinder Fake Driver to make them not depended on a >>> storage backend and make it faster. I believe, we can make this job >> voting >>> soon. Also, we need more contributors to this kind of tests. >>> >>> >>> Integrated tests for python-cinderclient >>> >>> We need such tests to make sure that we won't break Nova, Heat or other >>> python-cinderclient consumers with a next merged patch. There is a thread >>> in openstack-dev ML about such tests [8] and proposal [9] to introduce >> them >>> to python-cinderclient. >>> >>> >>> Rally tests >>> >>> IMO, it would be good to have new Rally scenarios for every patches like >>> 'improves performance', 'fixes concurrency issues', etc. Even if we as a >>> Cinder community don't have enough time to implement them, we have to ask >>> for them in reviews, openstack-dev ML, file Rally bugs and blueprints if >>> needed. >>> >> >> Are there any recent examples of a fix like this recently where it would >> seem like a reasonable task to write a Rally scenario along with the patch? >> >> Not being very familiar with Rally (as I think most of us aren't), I'm >> having a hard time picturing this. >> >>> >>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/282861/ >>> [2] http://paste.openstack.org/show/488925/ >>> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/267801/ >>> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/287115/ >>> [5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/274471/ >>> [6] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/265811/ >>> [7] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/265925/ >>> [8] >>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088027.html >>> [9] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/279432/ >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ivan Kolodyazhny, >>> http://blog.e0ne.info/ >>> __________________________________________________________________________ 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