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?

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)

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