[Devel] Vdsm functional tests

[Dan Kenigsberg]

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 09:00:14AM +0300, ybronhei wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 01:42 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> >On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 11:18:19AM +0300, ybronhei wrote:
> >>On 04/03/2014 07:31 PM, Douglas Schilling Landgraf wrote:
> >>>On 04/03/2014 11:08 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> >>>>Functional tests are intended to verify that a running Vdsm instance
> >>>>does what it should, when treated as a black box, over its public API.
> >>>>
> >>>>They should be comprehensive and representative of a typical field usage
> >>>>of Vdsm. It is a sin to break such a test - but we must be able to know
> >>>>when such a sin is committed.
> >>>>
> >>>>We currently have the following functional tests modules:
> >>>>
> >>>>- sosPluginTests.py
> >>>>   supervdsmFuncTests.py
> >>>>
> >>>Sure, count with me.
> >>
> >>any news about it ? need my help around it?
> >
> >Douglas still owes me a time estimate on when this be done.
> >
> >>supervdsmFuncTests.py doesn't really check much. we need to add much
> >>more logic there if we actually want to test the communication
> >>between vdsm and supervdsm (not sure if its really required.. its
> >>like checking calls to libvirt or sanlock or testing api calls)
> >
> >At the moment supervdsmFuncTests do test that supervdsm is reponsive and
> >that supervdsm.getProxy() works. It's not like testing libvirt api calls
> >since supervdsm is inside our tree. So it's like testing libvirt api
> >calls - within the libvirt project.
> >
> >I would embrace more smarter logic into the test - but I'm not sure what
> >you have in mind.
> >
> don't have yet. will think about it with douglas
> if you or anyone else had any thought of infra's functional test,
> please raise it up and we'll work on it

The logic of supervdsm.SuperVdsmProxy is much simpler than before, but
it would make sense to add a test for the case where supervdsm crashes,
and the proxy is expected to reconnect to the new instance.

Dan.