Hi Cedric, I probably expressed myself wrongly since you understood that I intent to block innovation and host SFC functions in functest but that is not my intention. My objective with this mail is to check if there exists (perhaps not), an efficient way for testing frameworks to communicate in advance important changes which will break things in the projects using those frameworks. I have a very good example: functest warned us during the Euphrates cycle that openstack_utils was not going to be maintained anymore and that we should stop using that and migrate to an alternative during the Fraser development cycle. You guys even suggested us an alternative (SNAPs). That was really helpful and we were able to plan the task accordingly in our SFC backlog and right now we are 100% compatible with SNAPs. Note that as far as I know, you haven't removed the openstack_utils yet (or at least we were able to use it while doing the migration).
However, during the last weeks, some functest changes broke our testing (apart from that function I mentioned as an example): * It seems like the openrc file changed the name in the functest container and /home/opnfv/functest/conf/openstack.creds does not work anymore * TEST_DB_URL is now an environment variable and cannot be consumed from the functest config file To understand how to fix those, we had to go into the IRC channel and ping you. If this is only SFC guys doing it, I guess we could continue with option C, but if now more users start to work on master (XCI and APEX), I suspect the number pings you will receive will increase. And I guess the same will happen with yardstick, that's why I don't think this is a SFC <--> Functest issue but a more general ways of working issue. Regards, Manuel On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 14:24 +0000, cedric.olliv...@orange.com wrote: > > > Hello Manuel, > > > In case of Functest, we are simply improving our code that why we are removing uncovered obsolete (and unused internally) functions. > > > As we take care of pylint output and coverage, we should stop maintaining modules/functions which are out of our standards and > unused by Functest. > https://git.opnfv.org/functest/tree/tox.ini > > > It’s well known that we are getting rid of openstack utils to leverage on snaps and we are removing unused functest utils > > We have worked on SDNVPN about that point before and we should apply the same rules for SFC. > I don’t understand why Functest should host functions needed by SFC. > > > > > In fact this issue is on the client side (SFC) which still uses obsolete Functest functions and your email seems asking to block innovation. > > I don’t think it’s an issue regarding APEX master or XCI for which this global improvement initiated from E is very helpful. > > > Be free to reuse this method in your tree as it could have belong to instead. > > Cédric > > > > > > De : opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-di scuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] > De la part de Manuel Buil > > Envoyé : vendredi 2 février 2018 13:00 > > À : OPNFV-TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV > > > Objet : [opnfv-tech-discuss] Could ways of working with testing frameworks be improved when working with master? > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > As you know, the SFC project is currently testing openstack master, that means we need to use functest master in order to consume the lastest patches in the projects we use. Unfortunately, in the last weeks, we wasted quite some time trying > > > > > > to understand why suddenly the tests were not able to run and the cause was a change in the master branch of functest. For example, we are using the function "timethis" from functest_utils, which was removed by this patch: https://github.com/opnfv/functest/commit/c6092 cb676363d89f366dc9a416ba6c53eeea33f#diff- b5f06ecfb223c80624f432ef33cf1fdd and > > suddenly our tests are not working and we don't know whether there is an alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > Functest is the framework we use for our tests and ideally, we (SFC project) would like to get some heads up before that change is done, so that we are warned and we don't have to waste time investigating what changed. I guess the same > > > > could be applied to other core testing frameworks like Yardstick. However, this is complicated and I am not sure if there is a good solution to achieve that level of communication without impacting the efficiency of funcatest/yardstick/... development. I have > some ideas: > > > > > > > > > > A) Functest/Yarstick leave the old functionality for a week adding a log saying "This is going to be deprecated, please check this patch: xxxx" > > > > > > > > > > B) Add gates in functest/yardstick projects which run tests of their customer projects (as in, SFC is a customer of functest). This way, projects could be warned on time > > > > > > > > > C) Do nothing. Sorry, this is the consequence of consuming functest/yardstick master > > > > > > > > D) ?? > > > > > > > > > > > From what I heard in the TSC, Apex is going to join the XCI philosophy and allow working with the tip of master, so it seems to me that more functest and potentially yardstick users are going to hit this problem, that's why I believe it > could be a good time to discuss possible solutions. > > > > > > > > > > Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to blame functest (or yardstick), I just want to share the problems we are having with the current ways of working and try to find a solution :) > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Manuel > > > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ > > > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss