metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Foley <mfo...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] Acceptance Tests
Date Fri, 03 Mar 2017 20:54:45 GMT
Thanks, Casey, good answers to all of the below.  I suggest the term “e2e” (end to end)
tests for what you are proposing.

On 3/3/17, 11:57 AM, "Casey Stella" <cestella@gmail.com> wrote:

    It is absolutely not a naive question, Matt.  We don't have a lot (or any)
    docs about our integration tests; it's more of a "follow the lead" type of
    thing at the moment, but that should be rectified.
    
    The integration tests spin up and down infrastructure in-process, some of
    which are real and some of which are mock versions of the services.  These
    are good for catching some types of bugs, but often things sneak through,
    like:
    
       - Hbase and storm can't exist in the same JVM, so HBase is mocked in
       those cases.
       - The FileSystem that we get for Hadoop is the LocalRawFileSystem, not
       truly HDFS.  There are differences and we've run into them..hilariously at
       times. ;)
       - Things done statically in a bolt are shared across all bolts because
       they all are threads in the same process
    
    It's good, it catches bugs, it lets us debug things easily, it runs with
    every single build automatically via travis.
    It's bad because it's awkward to get the dependencies isolated sufficiently
    for all of these components to get them to play nice in the same JVM.
    
    Acceptance tests would be run against a real cluster, so they would:
    
       - run against real components, not testing or mock components
       - run against multiple nodes
    
    I can imagine a world where we can unify the two to a certain degree in
    many cases if we could spin up a docker version of Metron to run as part of
    the build, but I think in the meantime, we should focus on providing both.
    
    I suspect the reference application is possibly inspiring my suggestions
    here, but I think the main difference here is that the reference
    application is intended to be informational from a end-user perspective:
    it's detailing a use-case that users will understand.  I don't think
    acceptance tests should loosely associate with real uses, but they should
    be free to delve into weird non-happy-pathways.
    
    On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Matt Foley <mattf@apache.org> wrote:
    
    > Automating stuff that now has to be done manually gets a big +1.
    >
    > But, Casey, could you please clarify the relationship between what you
    > plan to do and the current “integration test” framework?  Will this be in
    > the form of additional integration tests? Or a different test framework?
    > Can it be done in the integration test framework, rather than creating new
    > mechanism?
    >
    > BTW, if that’s a naïve question, forgive me, but I could find zero
    > documentation for the existing integration test capability, neither wiki
    > pages nor READMEs nor Jiras.  If there are any docs, please point me at
    > them.  Or even archived email threads.
    >
    > There is also something called the “Reference Application”
    > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/
    > Metron+Reference+Application which sounds remarkably like what you
    > propose to automate.  Is there / can there / should there be a relationship?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > --Matt
    >
    > On 3/3/17, 7:40 AM, "Otto Fowler" <ottobackwards@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >     +1
    >
    >     I agree with Justin’s points.
    >
    >
    >     On March 3, 2017 at 08:41:37, Justin Leet (justinjleet@gmail.com)
    > wrote:
    >
    >     +1 to both. Having this would especially ease a lot of testing that
    > hits
    >     multiple areas (which there is a fair amount of, given that we're
    > building
    >     pretty quickly).
    >
    >     I do want to point out that adding this type of thing makes the speed
    > of
    >     our builds and tests more important, because they already take up a
    > good
    >     amount of time. There are obviously tickets to optimize these things,
    > but
    >     I would like to make sure we don't pile too much on to every testing
    > cycle
    >     before a PR. Having said that, I think the testing proposed is
    > absolutely
    >     valuable enough to go forward with.
    >
    >     Justin
    >
    >     On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >     > I also propose, once this is done, that we modify the developer
    > bylaws
    >     and
    >     > the github PR script to ensure that PR authors:
    >     >
    >     > - Update the acceptance tests where appropriate
    >     > - Run the tests as a smoketest
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >     >
    >     > > Hi All,
    >     > >
    >     > > After doing METRON-744, where I had to walk through a manual test
    > of
    >     > every
    >     > > place that Stellar touched, it occurred to me that we should script
    >     this.
    >     > > It also occurred to me that some scripts that are run by the PR
    > author
    >     to
    >     > > ensure no regressions and, eventually maybe, even run on an INFRA
    >     > instance
    >     > > of Jenkins would give all of us some peace of mind.
    >     > >
    >     > > I am certain that this, along with a couple other manual tests from
    >     other
    >     > > PRs, could form the basis of a really great regression
    > acceptance-test
    >     > > suite and I'd like to propose that we do that, as a community.
    >     > >
    >     > > What I'd like to see from such a suite has the following
    >     characteristics:
    >     > >
    >     > > - Can be run on any Metron cluster, including but not limited to
    >     > > - Vagrant
    >     > > - AWS
    >     > > - An existing deployment
    >     > > - Can be *deployed* from ansible, but must be able to be deployed
    >     > > manually
    >     > > - With instructions in the readme
    >     > > - Tests should be idempotent and independent
    >     > > - Tear down what you set up
    >     > >
    >     > > I think between the Stellar REPL and the fundamental scriptability
    > of
    >     the
    >     > > Hadoop services, we can accomplish these tests with a combination
    > of
    >     > shell
    >     > > scripts and python.
    >     > >
    >     > > I propose we break this into the following parts:
    >     > >
    >     > > - Acceptance Testing Framework with a small smoketest
    >     > > - Baseline Metron Test
    >     > > - Send squid data through the squid topology
    >     > > - Add an threat triage alert
    >     > > - Ensure it gets through to the other side with alerts preserved
    >     > > - + Enrichment
    >     > > - Add an enrichment in the enrichment pipeline to the above
    >     > > - + Profiler
    >     > > - Add a profile with a tick of 1 minute to count per destination
    >     > > address
    >     > > - Base PCap test
    >     > > - Something like the manual test for METRON-743 (
    >     > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/467#
    >     > issue-210285324
    >     > > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/467#
    >     > issue-210285324>
    >     > > )
    >     > >
    >     > > Thoughts?
    >     > >
    >     > >
    >     > > Best,
    >     > >
    >     > > Casey
    >     > >
    >     >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    

Mime
View raw message