cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "SrikanteswaraRao Talluri" <srikanteswararao.tall...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 19195: Automation of CCP Objects Verification after external changes made to the original setup
Date Mon, 16 Feb 2015 05:06:32 GMT


> On Feb. 13, 2015, 6:42 a.m., SrikanteswaraRao Talluri wrote:
> > pushed to master 7461297f3e17b431643e7a8c575e799d0e151261

reverted this from master as this is not tested and causing other tests to fail. Please resubmit
a fresh patch for master.


- SrikanteswaraRao


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19195/#review72329
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 14, 2014, 12:33 a.m., Chandan Purushothama wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/19195/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 14, 2014, 12:33 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack, Girish Shilamkar, Raja Pullela, sanjeev n, Santhosh Edukulla,
and SrikanteswaraRao Talluri.
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Purpose of this code:
> 
> Generate CCP Objects (VMs, Volumes, Snapshots, VPC, etc..) and CCP Use Cases (Networking,
Data Content,etc) before an external action on the CCP Setup and verify the integrity of the
CCP Objects and the Use Cases after the external action on the CCP Setup. The integrity of
the CCP Objects is verified by performing operations that test the Usability of the objects.
This validates the intactness of the setup after an external action. The submitted patch covers
only few major use cases. It proves that similar code can be added in future to address similar
goals in verifying the integrity of CCP objects belonging to different components of the product.
> 
> The code format can be followed to verify validity of real time business use cases while
any code changes (CCP,hypervisor,external devices code, etc…) happen over a period of time.
> 
> The following are the scenarios that the code format can be used for:
> 1.Upgrade Validity Verification
>      a.	CCP Upgrade
>      b.	Hypervisors Upgrade
>      c.	External Devices Upgrade
>      d.	System VM Template Changes.
> 2.Patch Validity Verification
> 
> Code can be used as one of the primary Components to validity Upgrades. It will facilitate
the automation of Upgrade Test Verification completely. 
> 
> How to use the code:
> 
> *Kindly make the corresponding substitutions in the commands listed below.
> 
> Execute:
>  nosetests --with-marvin --marvin-config=$CONFIG $BASEDIR/integration/component/ test_minimal_ug_check.py
--load -a tags=preupgrade
> 
> After Upgrade or any Changes done to the Setup, Verify that the existing CCP objects
are not affected due to the external changes.
> 
> Execute:
> nosetests --with-marvin --marvin-config=$CONFIG $BASEDIR/integration/component/ test_minimal_ug_check.py
--load -a tags=postupgrade
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   test/integration/component/test_minimal_ug_check.py PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19195/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> PreUpgrade Output:
> 
> Test case no : Enable VPN for Public IP Address on the VPC ... ok    <-- Will fix
the description in the next patch
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ran 1 test in 1683.515s
> 
> OK
> 
> Post Upgrade Output:
> 
> Test case no : Remote a VPN User ... ok  <-- Will fix the description in the next
patch
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ran 1 test in 1269.134s
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chandan Purushothama
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message