[openstack-dev] [Fuel] fuel-client and Nailgun API

2015-02-09 Thread Nikolay Markov
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.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] fuel-client and Nailgun API

2015-02-09 Thread Kamil Sambor
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] fuel-client and Nailgun API

2015-02-09 Thread Roman Prykhodchenko
Actually it was not a hollywar but a small discussion which get no continuation due to low priority and some technical problems. The point is that ATM unit tests in python-fuelclient act like integration tests because they require a live instance of the Nailgun API and certain data in

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] fuel-client and Nailgun API

2015-02-09 Thread Sebastian Kalinowski
Hi, 2015-02-09 13:57 GMT+01:00 Nikolay Markov nmar...@mirantis.com: 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. Could you point us where was such hollywar was, so we could get some background on the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] fuel-client and Nailgun API

2015-02-09 Thread Nikolay Markov
Sebastian, it was mostly on some internal meetings. I think Roman Prykhodchenko was going to participate and shine some light on topic. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski skalinow...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi, 2015-02-09 13:57 GMT+01:00 Nikolay Markov nmar...@mirantis.com: