On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:36:18AM +0800, wenchao xia wrote: > 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".
Why would you need a running Vdsm instance for such a test? Dan. _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
