cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: [MERGE] ASA 1000v as external firewall in isolated guest networks
Date Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:54:17 GMT
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 09:50:36AM -0700, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> 
> On 4/12/13 6:55 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 06:55:56PM +0530, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 09:20:39AM -0400, Chip Childers wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 06:39:29AM +0000, Koushik Das wrote:
> >> > > Currently there are no functional tests, did e2e tests manually.
> >> > > There are some external setup that is required which then needs to
> >>be added to Cloudstack like Nexus 1000v, VNMC, ASA 1000v appliance
> >>details. I don't see any existing tests related to Vmware/Nexus stuff
> >>which I can reuse, so implementing all these steps would need some time.
> >> > > 
> >> > > So wanted to check if it is ok to merge now and add the functional
> >>tests subsequently?
> >> > 
> >> > Before we merge it in, can we first discuss how we want to hand this
> >> > sort of thing?  It seems that at least a marvin test, not run by
> >> > default, would be helpful here.  Certainly documentation on how to
> >>setup
> >> > an environment to support the test is also needed.
> >> > 
> >> > Do other's have thoughts on this?
> >> 
> >> +1 - I can spare some hardware to host virtual instances of the ASA
> >> appliance. We do NetScaler VPXs in this fashion. But I'm not sure what
> >> kind of pre-programming will be required on the ASA to run the test.
> >> So some documentation would certainly help.
> >
> >Koushik,
> >
> >I think that it will require working with Prasanna to get a Marvin test
> >suite for the feature ready to go.  I'd personally like to see that
> >*prior* to the merge into master.  We need to "up our game" on automated
> >testing of new features, so that we stop digging ourselves deeper and
> >deeper into a hole.
> >
> >-chip
> 
> But this approach isn't scalable either.
> 
> Every new whiz bang network device will require infrastructure / licenses
> / etc. 
> 
> 
> I think if there's component level tests of the code introduced (at least
> the network elements) that should be a good first step.
> 
> --
> Chiradeep

Agreed that it would be a good first step, absolutely.  We really do
need to think about how we deal with all of these integrations...  and
how we do ongoing testing.  It's going to be a challenge either way.

The point of having a marvin test, IMO, isn't necessarily tied to the CI
infrastructure.  Instead, it allows for a regression test to be run when
and if there is an appropriate target infrastructure.  I'm sort of
breaking the problem into two parts: having tests to run if you have the
required setup, and figuring out how we get the required setup.

Make sense?

Mime
View raw message