On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:58AM, Eli Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > System tests (Herriot controlled) tests were a part of nightly testing of every
> > build for at least 2 of .2xx release. I really can not comment on .203 and
> > after.
> Owen - are you running the system tests on the 20x release candidates?
> Do we know if the 20x release pass the system tests?
> > A normal procedure was to build a normal bits and run the tests; build
> > instrumented bits, deploy them to a 10 nodes cluster, and run system tests.
> > The current state of the code is that system tests require source code
> > workspace to be executed from. I have done some initial work to do workspace
> > independent testing but I don't know if it has been included to the public
> > releases of .203+ - I haven't really checked.
> > At any rate, running system tests are an easy task and the wiki page is
> > explaining how to do it.
> Running the system tests is actually not easy, those wiki instructions
> are out of date, require all kinds of manual steps, and some of the
> tests fail when just run from a local build (ie they require 3 DNs so
> you have to setup a cluster).
I will try once again: system tests are ALWAYS require cluster. This is why
they are called 'system' in the first place. The execution model, however,
require source code workspace as well so you can say 'ant test-system' there:
ant is used as the driver.
I am going to revisit the wiki to make sure it is up-to-date. But I don't
think it has been out-dated as you say. The source the system framework relies
upon are intact - it is guaranteed by test-patch. They are might be changes in
how cluster deployment is happening, but this is really not a concern of the
test framework: it explicitly states that it _expect an instrumented cluster
to be deployed_. This is is design constrain.
> > Assembling an instrumented cluster on the other hand
> > requires certain knowledge and release process and bits production.
> > Instrumented cluster isn't fault-injected - it is just instrumented ;) Yes, it
> > contains a few extra helper API calls in a few classes, which exactly makes
> > them a way more useful for the testing purpose. Without those a number of
> > testing scenarios would be impossible to implement as I have explained it on
> > many occasions.
> Could you point me to a thread that covers the few extra helper API
> calls that are injected? I can't see what API would both be necessary
> for a system test and also not able be included in the product itself.
> If you're system testing an instrumented build than you're not system
> testing the product used by users.
No can do. We had that discussion with you face to face at least twice. I
imagine there's no thread about this. As for the APIs: there's JavaDoc and
there's source code - take a look. In essence: only control and monitoring
APIs are injected which aren't a concern for a public API nor undermine the
legitimacy of such testing. If you are making such an assertion then seeing
some hard evidences to back it up would be quite awesome to see.
> > For the regular runs of system test Roman and I have created a regular
> > deployment of 0.22 cluster builds under ═Apache Hudson control a few months
> > ago. I don't know what's going on with this testing after recent troubles with
> > the build machines.
> How hard would it be to copy your 22 system test Jenkins job to adapt
> it to use a 20x build? Seems like the test bits should mostly be the
Adapting something is usually a non-effort conditional to the HW and time
Hope it helps.