于 2012-4-30 17:26, Dan Kenigsberg 写道:
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?
   planning to place some environment test case here, such as "thread
and pipe test".

Oh, it might be a stupid comment, but I personally dislike upper case
directory names. I find /ut/ /vt/ more modest.

OK, let's use lower case.

Dan.


_______________________________________________
vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel

Reply via email to