Yeah, summarizing all the intent will be difficult. Let's at least try
to capture the essential points, what about this?
test1 --> sfc_two_chains_SSH_and_HTTP # what makes it speical is
that 2 chains are different
test2 --> sfc_one_chain_two_service_functions_different_computes #
what makes it special is 2 different computes
test3 --> sfc_one_symmetric_chain_one_service_function # what makes
it special is symmetry
This would be making some implicit assumptions, which should be nice to
follow if the tests grow:
- SFs are asymmetric unless explicitly stated
- SFs are placed in the same compute, unless explicitly stated
Morgan's proposal makes a lot of sense to me as well, although maybe it
is too early to impose a rigid naming scheme. I think it's better to
wait until we have some more tests to look for common patterns in order
to make better decisions about the naming scheme.
Regards,
Juan
On 25/11/16 17:35, [email protected] wrote:
Hi
comments below
Morgan
Le 25/11/2016 à 16:55, Juan Vidal Allende a écrit :
Hi,
I have a couple of suggestions:
1) The '&' character has a special meaning in some environments
(e.g. bash), so I would avoid it.
2) Let's be consistent, either use camelCase for all the name, or
underscores, but try to avoid mixing them.
So following the names, which look appropriate to me, I propose
slightly different syntax:
test1 --> sfc_two_chains_one blocking_SSH_and_the_other_HTTP
test2 --> sfc_one_chain_through two_service_functions
test3 --> sfc_symmetric_chain #maybe needs some extra rewording
stating the number of SFs, as in other test names
+1
otherwise let's imagine some possible grammar
sfc_<nb chains>_<chain_1>_..._<chain_i>_<options>
nb_chains: 1, 2, ....
chain: ssh_block | http_block | ...
options: symmetric?
nothing in standardisation on the topic?
I'm also being more verbose with the names, trying to avoid
abbreviations in favor of a clearer language. I hope it does not
sound too pedantic.
not at all, it is good sense for me
Regards,
Juan
On 25/11/16 15:14, Manuel Buil wrote:
Hi,
As agreed in the latest weekly, we will contribute a couple more
test cases for Danube. That’s why, I suggest to change the names of
the tests in the functest DB and make them more descriptive:
test1 --> sfc_2chains_blockingSSH&HTTP
test2 --> sfc_1chain_2SFs
test3 --> sfc_symmetric_chain
Anyone against it?
Thanks,
Manuel
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
--
Morgan Richomme
Orange/ IMT/ OLN/ CNC/ NCA/ SINA
Network architect for innovative services
Future of the Network community member
Open source Orange community manager
tel. +33 (0) 296 072 106
mob. +33 (0) 637 753 326
[email protected]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
