settingsLogin | Registersettings

[openstack-dev] [qa][cinder][ceph] should Tempest tests the backend specific feature?

0 votes

In Cinder, there are many features/APIs which are backend specific and
will return 405 or 501 if same is not implemented on any backend [1].
If such tests are implemented in Tempest, then it will break some gate
where that backend job is voting. like ceph job in glance_store gate.

There been many such cases recently where ceph jobs were broken due to
such tests and recently it is for force-delete backup feature[2].
Reverting force-delete tests in [3]. To resolve such cases at some
extend, Jon is going to add a white/black list of tests which can run
on ceph job [4] depends on what all feature ceph implemented. But this
does not resolve it completely due to many reason like
1. External use of Tempest become difficult where user needs to know
what all tests to skip for which backend
2. Tempest tests become too specific to backend.

Now there are few options to resolve this:
1. Tempest should not tests such API/feature which are backend
specific like mentioned by api-ref like[1].
2. Tempest test can be disabled/skip based on backend. - This is not
good idea as it increase config options and overhead of setting those.
3. Tempest test can verify behavior with if else condition as per
backend. This is bad idea and lose the test strength.

IMO options 1 is better options. More feedback are welcome.

..1 https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/block-storage/v3/?expanded=force-delete-a-backup-detail#force-delete-a-backup
..2 https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1687538
..3 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/461625/
..4 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115229.html

-gmann


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
asked May 4, 2017 in openstack-dev by GHANSHYAM_MANN (5,700 points)   1 3 4

14 Responses

0 votes

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ghanshyam Mann ghanshyammann@gmail.com
wrote:

In Cinder, there are many features/APIs which are backend specific and
will return 405 or 501 if same is not implemented on any backend [1].
If such tests are implemented in Tempest, then it will break some gate
where that backend job is voting. like ceph job in glance_store gate.

There been many such cases recently where ceph jobs were broken due to
such tests and recently it is for force-delete backup feature[2].
Reverting force-delete tests in [3]. To resolve such cases at some
extend, Jon is going to add a white/black list of tests which can run
on ceph job [4] depends on what all feature ceph implemented. But this
does not resolve it completely due to many reason like
1. External use of Tempest become difficult where user needs to know
what all tests to skip for which backend
2. Tempest tests become too specific to backend.

Now there are few options to resolve this:
1. Tempest should not tests such API/feature which are backend
specific like mentioned by api-ref like[1].

So basically, if one of the 50 Cinder driver doesn't support a feature, we
should never test that feature ? What about the 49 other drivers ? If a
feature exists and can be tested in the Gate (with whatever default
config/driver is shipped) then I think we should test it.

  1. Tempest test can be disabled/skip based on backend. - This is not
    good idea as it increase config options and overhead of setting those.

Using regex and blacklist, any 3rd party CI can skip any test based on the
test ID. Without introducing a config flag. See:
https://github.com/openstack-infra/project-config/blob/1cea31f402b6b0cccc47cde203c12184b5392c90/jenkins/jobs/devstack-gate.yaml#L1871

  1. Tempest test can verify behavior with if else condition as per
    backend. This is bad idea and lose the test strength.

Yeah, that's bad.

IMO options 1 is better options. More feedback are welcome.

..1 https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/block-storage/v3/?
expanded=force-delete-a-backup-detail#force-delete-a-backup
..2 https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1687538
..3 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/461625/
..4 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-
April/115229.html

-gmann


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded May 2, 2017 by Jordan_Pittier (3,060 points)   2 3
0 votes

On 05/02/2017 01:42 AM, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
In Cinder, there are many features/APIs which are backend specific and
will return 405 or 501 if same is not implemented on any backend [1].
If such tests are implemented in Tempest, then it will break some gate
where that backend job is voting. like ceph job in glance_store gate.

There been many such cases recently where ceph jobs were broken due to
such tests and recently it is for force-delete backup feature[2].

This problem was detected on the initial patch [5], where the ceph gate
failed with the 405 error, but the patch was merged anyway. Why are
there "many such cases" of these jobs getting broken?

[5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/332670/

Reverting force-delete tests in [3]. To resolve such cases at some
extend, Jon is going to add a white/black list of tests which can run
on ceph job [4] depends on what all feature ceph implemented. But this
does not resolve it completely due to many reason like
1. External use of Tempest become difficult where user needs to know
what all tests to skip for which backend
2. Tempest tests become too specific to backend.

Now there are few options to resolve this:
1. Tempest should not tests such API/feature which are backend
specific like mentioned by api-ref like[1].

Is the proposal here to test these features via the in-tree Cinder
tempest tests instead of from tempest itself, or just not test any
features in Cinder which have backend-specific differences?

  1. Tempest test can be disabled/skip based on backend. - This is not
    good idea as it increase config options and overhead of setting those.

This option seems like the most straightforward way to get both good
test coverage and handle compatibility.

  1. Tempest test can verify behavior with if else condition as per
    backend. This is bad idea and lose the test strength.

IMO options 1 is better options. More feedback are welcome.

..1 https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/block-storage/v3/?expanded=force-delete-a-backup-detail#force-delete-a-backup
..2 https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1687538
..3 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/461625/
..4 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115229.html

-gmann


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded May 2, 2017 by Eric_Harney (2,100 points)   1 2
0 votes

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 03:36:20PM +0200, Jordan Pittier wrote:
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ghanshyam Mann ghanshyammann@gmail.com
wrote:

In Cinder, there are many features/APIs which are backend specific and
will return 405 or 501 if same is not implemented on any backend [1].
If such tests are implemented in Tempest, then it will break some gate
where that backend job is voting. like ceph job in glance_store gate.

There been many such cases recently where ceph jobs were broken due to
such tests and recently it is for force-delete backup feature[2].
Reverting force-delete tests in [3]. To resolve such cases at some
extend, Jon is going to add a white/black list of tests which can run
on ceph job [4] depends on what all feature ceph implemented. But this
does not resolve it completely due to many reason like
1. External use of Tempest become difficult where user needs to know
what all tests to skip for which backend
2. Tempest tests become too specific to backend.

Now there are few options to resolve this:
1. Tempest should not tests such API/feature which are backend
specific like mentioned by api-ref like[1].

So basically, if one of the 50 Cinder driver doesn't support a feature, we
should never test that feature ? What about the 49 other drivers ? If a
feature exists and can be tested in the Gate (with whatever default
config/driver is shipped) then I think we should test it.

50? Over 100 as of Ocata.

Well, is tempest's purpose in life to provide complete gate test coverage,
or is tempest's purpose in life to give operators a tool to validate that
their deployment is working as expected?

In attempting to do things in the past, I've received push back based on
the argument that it was the latter. For this reason, in-tree tempest tests
were added to Cinder to give us a way to get better test coverage for our
own sake.

Now that this is all in place, I think it's working well and I would like
to see it continue that way. IMO, tempest proper should not have anything
that isn't universally applicable to real world deployments. Not just for
things like Ceph, but things like the manage/unmanage backend specific
tests that were added and broke a large majority of third party CI.

Backend specific things should not be part of tempest in my opinion. We
should cover those things through in-tree tempest plugins and our own
testing.

  1. Tempest test can be disabled/skip based on backend. - This is not
    good idea as it increase config options and overhead of setting those.

Using regex and blacklist, any 3rd party CI can skip any test based on the
test ID. Without introducing a config flag. See:
https://github.com/openstack-infra/project-config/blob/1cea31f402b6b0cccc47cde203c12184b5392c90/jenkins/jobs/devstack-gate.yaml#L1871

  1. Tempest test can verify behavior with if else condition as per
    backend. This is bad idea and lose the test strength.

Yeah, that's bad.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded May 2, 2017 by Sean_McGinnis (11,820 points)   2 2 5
0 votes

On 2017-05-02 10:49:55 -0500 (-0500), Sean McGinnis wrote:
[...]

So basically, if one of the 50 Cinder driver doesn't support a
feature, we should never test that feature ? What about the 49
other drivers ? If a feature exists and can be tested in the
Gate (with whatever default config/driver is shipped) then I
think we should test it.

50? Over 100 as of Ocata.
[...]

The cover slide here just keeps getting truer and truer:

https://www.openstack.org/videos/vancouver-2015/openstack-is-doomed-and-it-is-your-fault

(also Thingee looks dashing in that scarf!)
--
Jeremy Stanley


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded May 2, 2017 by Jeremy_Stanley (56,700 points)   3 5 7
0 votes

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 6:46 AM Ghanshyam Mann ghanshyammann@gmail.com
wrote:

In Cinder, there are many features/APIs which are backend specific and
will return 405 or 501 if same is not implemented on any backend [1].
If such tests are implemented in Tempest, then it will break some gate
where that backend job is voting. like ceph job in glance_store gate.

Having a test in Tempest is important for interoperability and API backward
compatibility.
As long as available features are discoverable and reported in a consistent
way, it
is possible for app developer to write application that will work fine
against
different backends.

There been many such cases recently where ceph jobs were broken due to
such tests and recently it is for force-delete backup feature[2].
Reverting force-delete tests in [3]. To resolve such cases at some
extend, Jon is going to add a white/black list of tests which can run
on ceph job [4] depends on what all feature ceph implemented. But this
does not resolve it completely due to many reason like
1. External use of Tempest become difficult where user needs to know
what all tests to skip for which backend
2. Tempest tests become too specific to backend.

Now there are few options to resolve this:
1. Tempest should not tests such API/feature which are backend
specific like mentioned by api-ref like[1].
2. Tempest test can be disabled/skip based on backend. - This is not
good idea as it increase config options and overhead of setting those.

Tempest has many options because we decide not to rely on discovery, i.e.
we configure what we expect to find in the target cloud. I don't think we
can use
this as a factor to influence the decision in this case.

  1. Tempest test can verify behavior with if else condition as per
    backend. This is bad idea and lose the test strength.

IMO options 1 is better options. More feedback are welcome.

..1
https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/block-storage/v3/?expanded=force-delete-a-backup-detail#force-delete-a-backup
..2 https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1687538
..3 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/461625/
..4
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115229.html

-gmann


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded May 3, 2017 by Andrea_Frittoli (5,920 points)   1 2 3
0 votes

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:41 PM Jordan Pittier jordan.pittier@scality.com
wrote:

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ghanshyam Mann ghanshyammann@gmail.com
wrote:

In Cinder, there are many features/APIs which are backend specific and
will return 405 or 501 if same is not implemented on any backend [1].
If such tests are implemented in Tempest, then it will break some gate
where that backend job is voting. like ceph job in glance_store gate.

There been many such cases recently where ceph jobs were broken due to
such tests and recently it is for force-delete backup feature[2].
Reverting force-delete tests in [3]. To resolve such cases at some
extend, Jon is going to add a white/black list of tests which can run
on ceph job [4] depends on what all feature ceph implemented. But this
does not resolve it completely due to many reason like
1. External use of Tempest become difficult where user needs to know
what all tests to skip for which backend
2. Tempest tests become too specific to backend.

Now there are few options to resolve this:
1. Tempest should not tests such API/feature which are backend
specific like mentioned by api-ref like[1].

So basically, if one of the 50 Cinder driver doesn't support a feature, we
should never test that feature ? What about the 49 other drivers ? If a
feature exists and can be tested in the Gate (with whatever default
config/driver is shipped) then I think we should test it.

  1. Tempest test can be disabled/skip based on backend. - This is not
    good idea as it increase config options and overhead of setting those.

Using regex and blacklist, any 3rd party CI can skip any test based on the
test ID. Without introducing a config flag. See:
https://github.com/openstack-infra/project-config/blob/1cea31f402b6b0cccc47cde203c12184b5392c90/jenkins/jobs/devstack-gate.yaml#L1871

This way each 3rd party system has to maintain its own list, which has the
advantage that
different teams maintain their own list (which is nice from an ownership
and scale pov).

However I think such list of tests are not as re-usable as having a
devstack plugin (or an
ansible or puppet module) changing a few tempest config options.

  1. Tempest test can verify behavior with if else condition as per
    backend. This is bad idea and lose the test strength.

Yeah, that's bad.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded May 3, 2017 by Andrea_Frittoli (5,920 points)   1 2 3
0 votes

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:56 PM Sean McGinnis sean.mcginnis@gmx.com wrote:

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 03:36:20PM +0200, Jordan Pittier wrote:

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ghanshyam Mann ghanshyammann@gmail.com
wrote:

In Cinder, there are many features/APIs which are backend specific and
will return 405 or 501 if same is not implemented on any backend [1].
If such tests are implemented in Tempest, then it will break some gate
where that backend job is voting. like ceph job in glance_store gate.

There been many such cases recently where ceph jobs were broken due to
such tests and recently it is for force-delete backup feature[2].
Reverting force-delete tests in [3]. To resolve such cases at some
extend, Jon is going to add a white/black list of tests which can run
on ceph job [4] depends on what all feature ceph implemented. But this
does not resolve it completely due to many reason like
1. External use of Tempest become difficult where user needs to know
what all tests to skip for which backend
2. Tempest tests become too specific to backend.

Now there are few options to resolve this:
1. Tempest should not tests such API/feature which are backend
specific like mentioned by api-ref like[1].

So basically, if one of the 50 Cinder driver doesn't support a feature,
we
should never test that feature ? What about the 49 other drivers ? If a
feature exists and can be tested in the Gate (with whatever default
config/driver is shipped) then I think we should test it.

50? Over 100 as of Ocata.

Well, is tempest's purpose in life to provide complete gate test coverage,
or is tempest's purpose in life to give operators a tool to validate that
their deployment is working as expected?

Neither.

Tempest is used for several different purposes, but I would say it was never
meant to ensure 100% coverage of the API. It is used by many operators to
validate their deployments, even if that part is better achieved via the
"scenario" tests, as opposed to the "API" tests.

Main use cases for Tempest are:
- integration (cross-service) testing in the gate
- help to ensure API backward compatibility / stability
- home for interoperability tests

In attempting to do things in the past, I've received push back based on
the argument that it was the latter. For this reason, in-tree tempest tests
were added to Cinder to give us a way to get better test coverage for our
own sake.

There are several use cases for in-tree tests.
Some examples:

Test that provide very little cross-service validation (e.g. most API
negative
tests) do not need to be in Tempest. Running a full cloud is expensive
resource and time-wise, and it's not the best test environment to run a
large
combination of negative test cases.

Many tests cannot be driven via API. It's very hard for instance to test
any transient resource state via API, since there's not enough control via
the API.

Scheduler tests are not best implemented via API as well, since they often
require
several nodes and resources when executed in a full cloud environment.

Now that this is all in place, I think it's working well and I would like
to see it continue that way. IMO, tempest proper should not have anything
that isn't universally applicable to real world deployments. Not just for
things like Ceph, but things like the manage/unmanage backend specific
tests that were added and broke a large majority of third party CI.

Is there a policy in Cinder that a backend must implement a certain set of
APIs? If so we could think of testing only that set of APIs in Tempest, so
that
any app developer knows that he/she can rely on that minimum set of APIs.

If the list of APIs is not constrained on cinder side, the next driver
could come
along that does not support an API, and then we would have to stop testing
it
in Tempest - which is not an option.

Another point is that API that rely on services other than nova are best
tested
in Tempest, so that the tests run in the gate of other services as well -
or at
least the cinder functional test job should run against the other services
as well.

Backend specific things should not be part of tempest in my opinion. We
should cover those things through in-tree tempest plugins and our own
testing.

  1. Tempest test can be disabled/skip based on backend. - This is not
    good idea as it increase config options and overhead of setting those.

Using regex and blacklist, any 3rd party CI can skip any test based on
the
test ID. Without introducing a config flag. See:

https://github.com/openstack-infra/project-config/blob/1cea31f402b6b0cccc47cde203c12184b5392c90/jenkins/jobs/devstack-gate.yaml#L1871

  1. Tempest test can verify behavior with if else condition as per
    backend. This is bad idea and lose the test strength.

Yeah, that's bad.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded May 3, 2017 by Andrea_Frittoli (5,920 points)   1 2 3
0 votes

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 01:14:18PM +0000, Andrea Frittoli wrote:

>

Now that this is all in place, I think it's working well and I would like
to see it continue that way. IMO, tempest proper should not have anything
that isn't universally applicable to real world deployments. Not just for
things like Ceph, but things like the manage/unmanage backend specific
tests that were added and broke a large majority of third party CI.

Is there a policy in Cinder that a backend must implement a certain set of
APIs? If so we could think of testing only that set of APIs in Tempest, so
that
any app developer knows that he/she can rely on that minimum set of APIs.

Yes, there is a minimum feature set that all backend drivers must support.
That base functionality can be found here [0] and here [1].

[0] https://docs.openstack.org/developer/cinder/devref/drivers.html#core-functionality
[1] https://github.com/openstack/cinder/blob/master/cinder/interface/volume_driver.py

The issue we've had with some of the tempest tests isn't actually around
whether the given backend supports the API. It's the way the API is used
that becomes a challenge.

I'll use the manage/unmanage snapshot one as an example. This is not one
of the required APIs, but many backends do support it. But the way this
API works is you are basically saying "manage this snapshot that you
identify as X", where "X" can be different things depending on the volume
driver being used. It's the storage device's native way of identifying
a snapshot, which may or may not be our Cinder snapshot ID.

So that test was added based on the way the LVM driver works for this.
That part is great, we get some more code coverage in the gate. But then
each volume driver that uses a different ID had to first a) start failing
CI, b) troubleshoot what happened to cause this new failure, c) reconfig
their CI to skip this test. Repeat cycle for each test added that does
something specific to how one or a small subset of backends work.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded May 3, 2017 by Sean_McGinnis (11,820 points)   2 2 5
0 votes

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 21:49 Andrea Frittoli andrea.frittoli@gmail.com
wrote:

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 6:46 AM Ghanshyam Mann ghanshyammann@gmail.com
wrote:

In Cinder, there are many features/APIs which are backend specific and
will return 405 or 501 if same is not implemented on any backend [1].
If such tests are implemented in Tempest, then it will break some gate
where that backend job is voting. like ceph job in glance_store gate.

Having a test in Tempest is important for interoperability and API
backward compatibility.
As long as available features are discoverable and reported in a
consistent way, it
is possible for app developer to write application that will work fine
against
different backends.

But in this case, features are not discoverable. From API status code only
we can get to know whether it is implemented in particular backend or not.
It has same issue for interoperability as Tempest facing now.

There been many such cases recently where ceph jobs were broken due to
such tests and recently it is for force-delete backup feature[2].
Reverting force-delete tests in [3]. To resolve such cases at some
extend, Jon is going to add a white/black list of tests which can run
on ceph job [4] depends on what all feature ceph implemented. But this
does not resolve it completely due to many reason like
1. External use of Tempest become difficult where user needs to know
what all tests to skip for which backend
2. Tempest tests become too specific to backend.

Now there are few options to resolve this:
1. Tempest should not tests such API/feature which are backend
specific like mentioned by api-ref like[1].
2. Tempest test can be disabled/skip based on backend. - This is not
good idea as it increase config options and overhead of setting those.

Tempest has many options because we decide not to rely on discovery, i.e.
we configure what we expect to find in the target cloud. I don't think we
can use
this as a factor to influence the decision in this case.

  1. Tempest test can verify behavior with if else condition as per
    backend. This is bad idea and lose the test strength.

IMO options 1 is better options. More feedback are welcome.

..1
https://developer.openstack.org/api-ref/block-storage/v3/?expanded=force-delete-a-backup-detail#force-delete-a-backup
..2 https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1687538
..3 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/461625/
..4
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115229.html

-gmann


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
-gmann


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded May 4, 2017 by GHANSHYAM_MANN (5,700 points)   1 3 4
0 votes

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 21:57 Andrea Frittoli andrea.frittoli@gmail.com
wrote:

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:41 PM Jordan Pittier jordan.pittier@scality.com
wrote:

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ghanshyam Mann ghanshyammann@gmail.com
wrote:

In Cinder, there are many features/APIs which are backend specific and
will return 405 or 501 if same is not implemented on any backend [1].
If such tests are implemented in Tempest, then it will break some gate
where that backend job is voting. like ceph job in glance_store gate.

There been many such cases recently where ceph jobs were broken due to
such tests and recently it is for force-delete backup feature[2].
Reverting force-delete tests in [3]. To resolve such cases at some
extend, Jon is going to add a white/black list of tests which can run
on ceph job [4] depends on what all feature ceph implemented. But this
does not resolve it completely due to many reason like
1. External use of Tempest become difficult where user needs to know
what all tests to skip for which backend
2. Tempest tests become too specific to backend.

Now there are few options to resolve this:
1. Tempest should not tests such API/feature which are backend
specific like mentioned by api-ref like[1].

So basically, if one of the 50 Cinder driver doesn't support a feature,
we should never test that feature ? What about the 49 other drivers ? If a
feature exists and can be tested in the Gate (with whatever default
config/driver is shipped) then I think we should test it.

  1. Tempest test can be disabled/skip based on backend. - This is not
    good idea as it increase config options and overhead of setting those.

Using regex and blacklist, any 3rd party CI can skip any test based on
the test ID. Without introducing a config flag. See:
https://github.com/openstack-infra/project-config/blob/1cea31f402b6b0cccc47cde203c12184b5392c90/jenkins/jobs/devstack-gate.yaml#L1871

This way each 3rd party system has to maintain its own list, which has the
advantage that
different teams maintain their own list (which is nice from an ownership
and scale pov).

However I think such list of tests are not as re-usable as having a
devstack plugin (or an
ansible or puppet module) changing a few tempest config options.

Humm, I am little bit hesitate to go that way. For gate and CI it might be
good solution but for production cloud testing it makes Tenpest difficult
to use.

If I use Tempest to test my cloud, few tests going to fail as those were
not supported by cinder driver my cloud has or going to have.
I do not have any way to configure something so that test can be disabled.
Instead I need to maintain list of tests to run or skip. And that list is
not static, it grows dynamically.
This makes Tempest difficult to use.

  1. Tempest test can verify behavior with if else condition as per
    backend. This is bad idea and lose the test strength.

Yeah, that's bad.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
-gmann


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded May 4, 2017 by GHANSHYAM_MANN (5,700 points)   1 3 4
...