On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:14:04 +0900 Matt Riedemann
wrote
> On 5/13/2018 9:06 PM, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
> >> +1 on idea. As of now slow marked tests are from nova, cinder and
> >> neutron scenario tests and 2 API swift tests only [4]. I agree that
> >> making a generic job in
On 5/13/2018 9:06 PM, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
+1 on idea. As of now slow marked tests are from nova, cinder and
neutron scenario tests and 2 API swift tests only [4]. I agree that
making a generic job in tempest is better for maintainability. We can
use existing job for that with below
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> The tempest-full job used to run API and scenario tests concurrently, and if
>> you go back far enough I think it also ran slow tests.
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:32 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:45:39AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> The tempest-full job used to run API and scenario tests concurrently, and if
>> you go back far enough I think it also ran slow tests.
>
> Well it's
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> The tempest-full job used to run API and scenario tests concurrently, and if
> you go back far enough I think it also ran slow tests.
>
> Sometime in the last year or so, the full job was changed to run the
> scenario
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:45:39AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> The tempest-full job used to run API and scenario tests concurrently, and if
> you go back far enough I think it also ran slow tests.
Well it's a bit more subtle than that. Skipping slow tests was added right
before we introduced
The tempest-full job used to run API and scenario tests concurrently,
and if you go back far enough I think it also ran slow tests.
Sometime in the last year or so, the full job was changed to run the
scenario tests in serial and exclude the slow tests altogether. So the
API tests run