On 09/29/2014 09:02 AM, Josef Reidinger wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:24:13 +0200 Ancor Gonzalez Sosa
wrote: Since I was tired of the Trello card I spent the whole workshop working on and being inspired by Flavio's talk, I switched my mind this morning to the integration tests card.
I had an idea for writing tests with much less stubbing (using a virtual system) than I think is worth trying.
Explained (together with some braindumping) at https://public.pad.fsfe.org/p/yast-integration-tests
Cheers.
Hi, I answer to etherpad document here as I have more highlevel notes:
1) It does not make sense to me to separate two layers for integration testing. Integration testing is whole stack test so if click on button on top level do what is expected. Integration testing usually have almost none mocking or testing on bariers ( where barier is parts out of your control, which you cannot affect ).
My fault. I made an error in the title of the mail. I should have been "an idea for functional tests" (I was sure I used "functional" until I read your reply). That's why the etherpad is titled "integration and functional tests for Yast". I'm focusing first in the later because I'm afraid there is no lightweight solution for the former.
2) Your proposal with scr_server is almost exactly what old testsuite did - testing on SCR level. It have several significant drawbacks:
2a) It do not test whole stack. If there is bug in agent, you do not catch it
Not all, but will help to catch many of them, I think.
2b) It also do not test integration with whole system, so if some command stop working, like removing option or splitting package, or if configuration file change syntax, so won't notice it.
As I said. The solution is not really for integration tests (wrong mail's subject). Even though, I'm not sure if I get your point here. The goal is not to test that a given SCR command was called (that's what we already do with the current unit tests), but to check the status of the target system. Nothing stops us to easily check if a service is running, if a given file is there, etc.
2c) It is a lot of work and hard to maintain. Consider how often we break our old testsuite just before we add some new SCR calls.
I agree. Nevertheless, My impression was that agents do not change so much nowadays. In any case, there are plenty of tools to automate creation of VMs/containers out there.
3) docker is for me not solution, as in docker do not run systemd and almost all modules somehow manipulate with services. So I think only way is full virtualization.
I was not aware of that drawback. I though it was possible to run something "closer" to a full system inside a container. Well, time for a closer look to Pennyworth then.
No let me comment your requirements:
rollbacks yes, it make sense. When I play in past with cloud and kvm, it have snapshotting ability
"inject" yast module with dependencies I will be more strict here. Install yast package. It ensure that installation works for package, that it have all required packages and also test way which probably user use.
different initial systems yes, make sense. Question is if we need it prepared or if we start with same initial system and convert to target state like customer should do it.
I was wondering the same. We probably should have some hybrid system. Some "recipes" to create the systems with some mechanisms to reuse the results as long as they are reusable, to reduce the overhead.
temporary system and catch output Yes, it make sense for me.
What other requirements should be there
1) parallel run integration tests are quite slow and we need to speed up as much as possible
2) visible output Common problem is that integration tests run over night, so next day everyone should see what is broken and that we need to fix it.
3) easy debugging If something break in over-night run, we need to have way how to get what is broken
3) reduce fragility Common problem of integration testing is fragility, as tests are often broken. So we need easy way how to fix it or how to make it more robust
Few ideas I have about topic:
- using VNC library to work with UI - https://code.google.com/p/ruby-vnc/
That's what openQA does nowadays.
- use OCR to localize buttons with text and have pointers where to click
openQA have some preliminary support for this as well. But we found out that the current image matching mechanisms does a good-enough job (sometimes even better that OCR) in 99% of situations. We have not invested much effort in OCR since then.
- use cloud for parallel build with its snapshotting ability
Sounds smart. openQA currently uses kvm for snapshots and we are trying to get the cloud team involved to achieve distribution capabilities (all workers must be in the same machine right now).
- create tree if requirements and how to get into such state like
installation with partitioning A -> snapshot A -> install + run module M1 in scenario A -> install + run module M2 in scenario A
installation with partitioning B -> snapshot B -> install + run module M1 in scenario B -> install + run module M2 in scenario B
installation with partitioning C -> snapshot C -> install + run module M1 in scenario B
For quick install we can use autoyast and before we run test we should verify that it is really expected state
Sounds like ideas that has been considered for openQA (not implemented because the lack of manpower).
- For released project use already known snapshot, for product before release use latest succesful snapshot
+1. As said before, I was focusing more in lightweight solutions for functional tests. Your plans for comprehensive full integration tests that runs overnight and test the installation process overlaps too much with openQA, IMHO. I know that openQA sucks in many things (tests written in dirty Perl not being the minor one), but a very high percentage of your idea sounds like re-inventing a better openQA to me. Cheers. -- Ancor González Sosa openSUSE Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org