CSIT test tools
|
Luis Gomez <luis.gomez@...>
Hi guys,
Congratulations, I downloaded the python scripts to the test tools VMs, changed the controller IP and run the system test with no issues. I saw you coded very well all the REST requests so this should be a good input for Robot framework.
BR/Luis
From: Baohua Yang [mailto:yangbaohua@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:10 AM To: Luis Gomez Cc: Moiz Raja; integration-dev@... Subject: Re: [integration-dev] System Test Plan discussion
Hi Luis Thanks for your willing to help test the code. Currently, we've finished the tests on main functions of all modules in the base edition. We believe there's still lots of work to do and welcome for any feedback! Denghui and I have discussed a lot on the development plan, but we think there will be more power community-widely. Every member, please do not hesitate to drop lines. Thanks!
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Luis Gomez <luis.gomez@...> wrote: Hi Moiz,
See my answers inline:
From: Moiz Raja [mailto:moraja@...]
Hi Guys,
A couple of questions on the System test.
a. Will the System Test be integrated with the build? The system test will not run with the build, at least the one based on Robot/Phyton. The idea is to trigger a job so that the controller VM (separated from the build server) fetches the latest release vehicle from Jenkins and runs it. After this we will trigger the test case execution in Robot.
b. What framework are we going to use to deploy the built artifacts? Is it going to be something like capistrano or custom bash scripts? The test code (Robot or Python) does not need to be built so I do not think we are going to have release artifacts as we have in Java. Instead we will have the test code stored in our git and then Robot will fetch the code from there. c. Will the python/robot tests live in the integration repository? Anything tests that I can look at? Yes, that is the idea although nothing has been uploaded to the repo yet. So far we have 2 things: Python scripts created by China team and stored in an external repo and Robot framework installed in Open Lab at Ericsson. Both are now described (Carol updated the Robot today) in https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/CrossProject:Integration_Group:Test_Tools
I remind everybody this week is to get familiar with these tools and see how we can better use them so yes you and everybody is invited to take a look.
I will personally try to get the python scripts to work in the Open Lab at Ericsson tomorrow the latest.
BR/Luis
-Moiz
On Nov 3, 2013, at 12:16 AM, Luis Gomez <luis.gomez@...> wrote:
OK, I changed the test case order so that we start with the most basic services and end with most abstracted services :
- Switch Mgr - Topology Mgr - FRM - Statistics Mgr - Configuration - Host Tracker & Simple Forwarding - ARP Handler - Forward Manager - Container Mgr
Note that basic service does not necessarily means simple to test, so maybe I was not very precise when I said simple-to-complex. What I really meant was something like basic-to-extra functions.
I also added the required steps on every area so every test case above is self-complete. Please review the test plan and let me know if you agree with it.
As for your question, yes, we can categorize the services in different ways like for example: basic network functions (Switch Mgr, Topology Mgr, FRM, Stats Mgr), extra network functions (Host Tracker, Simple Forwarding, ARP Handler, Forward Mgr), basic node functions (Configuration, User Mgr, Connection Mgr) and extra node functions (Container Mgr, Cluster Mgr). This is just an idea but it could be more, anyway besides the classification the important is that we do not leave features/modules without test.
BR/Luis
From: Gmail [mailto:yangbaohua@gmail.com]
Sure, Luis. This is a valuable question! IMHO, the simple-to-complex order is good. However, we might also keep test cases independent from each other, i.e., each test case should be self-complete. Because, we sometime may want to test the function of individual module, instead of the entire platform. Besides, we may even categorize the tested modules based on their functions, test complexity, etc. For example, state collection modules, basic forwarding modules, QoS modules.... And each category can be tested separately. How do you think?
_______________________________________________
-- |
|
|