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 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:30:25 GMT
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:43:25AM +0530, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:54:17PM -0400, Chip Childers wrote:
> > > >
> > > >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.
> > 
> 
> In general the way we've taken care of external devices for other
> network appliances, NetScaler for instance, is to assume the
> deployment contains the network element present (inline, side-by-side,
> thingamajig mode) and test the services it provides as a tenant would
> use it. We don't test the actual deployment itself and assume the
> admin has provisioned and registered the appliance appropriately.
> 
> -- 
> Prasanna.,
>

Makes sense, and that jives with my point:  having the tests is
important, because then if you have the gear you know how to confirm the
functionality via automated tests.


Mime
View raw message