[Lustre-devel] [Twg] your opinion about testing improvements (was Lustre-devel Digest, Vol 72, Issue 17)
Alexander Lezhoev
Alexander_Lezhoev at xyratex.com
Thu Apr 5 01:40:16 PDT 2012
Hi Chris,
I completely agree that the test-framework must be significantly
revised. We have some plans to improve it and I think, it would be
useful to share our ideas and visions of this task. Really we considered
the separation of tests and Lustre code as a part of the framework
improvement. So I think, we need to share our approaches and develop a
conception which would be satisfactory for all. What do you think about
opening a discussion about new test-framework?
--
Alexander Lezhoev.
Morpheus test team.
Xyratex.
On 04/03/2012 06:21 PM, Chris Gearing wrote:
>
> We don't have a single script because the tests are at times very
> tightly coupled to the Lustre version. There were a lot of changes
> between 1.8.x and 2.x and a lot of corresponding changes to the test
> scripts. Where the tests are the same and bugs were found in the 2.x
> test scripts these should have been backported to the 1.8.x test
> scripts if this was not done then we should do it for inclusion into
> the 1.8.8 release.
>
> The notion of making 'master' scripts work with with all versions is
> obviously possible but it is a very significant task and given that
> the scripts themselves are written in a language (sic) that does not
> provide structure a single script strategy is likely to create many
> more 'interoperability issues' than it fixes.
>
> Also it's worth considering that we have best part of a 1000 discrete
> changes, whenever a test is re-engineered the test itself must be
> proven to detect failure as well as success. i.e. If someone produced
> a version independent test set that passed all versions we would not
> know that the process was a success, we would need to check that each
> re-engineered test 'failed' appropriately for each Lustre version,
> this is a big task that I doubt can be properly achieved in bash.
>
> So in summary the best solution given what we have today is to back
> port fixes to the test scripts as we back port fixes to the code. This
> is an investment in time and requires the same discipline to test as
> we have for coding. A single set of scripts that caters for all
> versions appears I believe like an easy solution but actually would
> require huge investment that would be better spent developing a modern
> test framework and infrastructure that can support Lustre for the next
> ten years.
>
More information about the lustre-devel
mailing list