On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:19:21AM +0800, wenchao xia wrote:
> 于 2012-4-26 21:57, Adam Litke 写道:
> >On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 05:24:29PM +0800, wenchao xia wrote:
> >>Hello,
> >>   vdsm now have UT suits for developer, but sometimes building and
> >>installation machine is not the same one, and additional check is need
> >>which is ignored at building time, so I think some test cases should be
> >>also run on target machine to check potential errors, Then I want to
> >>introduce a sub package as VT suits.
> >>Purpose:
> >>   UT: for developers, more likely a white box, running on building
> >>environment.
> >>   VT: for user and deployment, more likely a black box, running on
> >>  product or testing environment, all known issue should be covered.
> >>
> >>Supposed approach:
> >>   1 modify building system to generate package: vdsm-VT.rpm.
> >
> >I would prefer the package name 'vdsm-test.rpm' and this package should 
> >include
> >unit tests and verification tests.
> >
> >>   2 install as an option, after install, user type "vdsm-VT" would make
> >>the test begin.
> >
> >The test runner should be able to run the full suite of unit tests and
> >verification tests (with an option to run only unit tests or only 
> >verification
> >tests).  This can be the same program that we use in the build environment
> >except that it will set the PYTHONPATH differently to target the installed
> >files.
> >
>   good idea, checking on the details of vdsm-hack in tests.
> >>Planned details:
> >>   1 Going to place cases in vdsm project in ./tests/VT.
> >>   2 On installation will move some useful UT cases into VT.
> >
> >If you follow my approach above, you would simply package the whole tests/
> >directory and no copying would be necessary.
> >
> >>   3 use same framework UT used.
> >>   4 two sub dir in test/VT: user_case_test;general_test.
> >
> >What is the difference between these two types of tests?
> >
>   user_cases would holds tests simulating the scenario user calling
> vdsm, and it could be examples for user. xmlrpc(vdscli) and rest-api
> cases would go here. I guess  xmlrpc testcases already exist in engine
> side, and moving them here makes vdsm more independent and robust.
>   general_test would holds test detecting target environment problem,
> such as authority settings, and thread pipe tests, etc.
>   The names of the two directories are not good, need to be justified.
> >>   It is just a scratch from my mind, so I'd like hear your opinions.
> >
> >Thanks for the idea!  Do you have a sample test for the verification test 
> >suite?
> >Will it be your pipe deadlock test?
> >
>   Yeah, plan to place the test in it.
>   As summary, I guess a better structure of test would be as following:
> vdsm
> |--tests
>    |test_runner.sh
>    |--UT
>    |--VT
>       |--xmlrpc
>       |--rest
>       |--general

Sounds reasonable. But what's "general"? Isn't VT going to be using some
kind of binding in any case?
Oh, it might be a stupid comment, but I personally dislike upper case
directory names. I find /ut/ /vt/ more modest.

vdsm-devel mailing list

Reply via email to