incubator-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: [2/2] git commit: refs/heads/4.1 - CLOUDSTACK-786, CLOUDSTACK-1014: Moved usage APIs to cloud-api. Removed ManagementServerExt. Usage API related implementation is added to UsageServiceImpl
Date Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:26:04 GMT
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:16:27PM +0530, Kishan Kavala wrote:
> Chip,
>   There are no functionality changes in this commit. APIs moved from cloud-server to
cloud-api and the implementation moved from ManagementSerevrExt to UsageService.
> There are no tests covering usage currently. I plan to add unit tests for usage in general
not just APIs. All others existing tests passed.
> 

I understand that there were no new features, but a move like this
without some sort of testing is scary.  When the API refactoring work
happened, there was quite a bit of discussion about the marvin tests
being used to test for regressions.  I'm concerned about this change not
having had the same test focus.

What can / should we do to be comfortable with this change?

Are there QA regression tests that are planned already to cover off this
functionality?

-chip

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 9:20 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [2/2] git commit: refs/heads/4.1 - CLOUDSTACK-786,
> > CLOUDSTACK-1014: Moved usage APIs to cloud-api. Removed
> > ManagementServerExt. Usage API related implementation is added to
> > UsageServiceImpl
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Kishan Kavala <Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Chip,
> > >   API refactoring moved all the APIs to cloud-api project. But somehow 6
> > APIs (all related to usage) remained in cloud-server. The cmd objects and
> > their implementations also were not inline with the rest of the APIs. This
> > commit moved the 6 Usage APIs and fixed the implementation.
> > >
> > > ~kishan
> >
> > Fair, thanks for explaining.
> >
> > Are there any test results from this commit?  We tested the API
> > refactoring prior to cutting 4.1, and I'm surprised that this was
> > missed.  Did you run a regression tests against the changes?
> >
> > > On 05-Feb-2013, at 8:49 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey Kishan,
> > >>
> > >> Was this refactoring needed as part of 4.1?
> > >>
> > >>

Mime
View raw message