metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] Acceptance Tests
Date Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:14:44 GMT
Although I disagree, I completely understand the negative feelings towards
Ansible.  I think Ansible has its problems, but it also has many advantages
too.

I would be in favor of Ansible over something with less structure like a
set of Bash scripts.  At the same time, I would probably favor a number of
alternatives over Ansible, but I just don't know what those are yet.

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:07 PM, David Lyle <dlyle65535@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm -1 on Ansible for testing for the same reasons I recommended reducing
> reliance on it for deployment. It simply isn't well suited to be a general
> purpose installer (or testing framework) for the variety of OS/Ansible
> versions that we find in the wild.
>
> I'd figure out how/what we want to test and then see what we need for a
> suitable framework. I'm certain we can find one that generalizes better
> than Ansible has for us so far.
>
> -D...
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Ryan Merriman <merrimanr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't think a cluster installed by ansible is a prerequisite to using
> > ansible to integration test.  They would be completely separate modules
> > except maybe sharing some property or inventory files.  Just need to run
> > scripts and hit rest endpoints right?  Just an idea, maybe it's overkill.
> > I'm cool with rolling our own.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe, but I'd argue that we would want this to be run against a
> > > non-ansible installed cluster.  For a first pass, I'd recommend just a
> > set
> > > of shell scripts utilizing the REPL and the REST API along with shell
> > > commands.  Most of our capabilities are quite scriptable.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Ryan Merriman <merrimanr@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bumping this thread.  Looks like we have several +1s so I propose we
> > move
> > > > to the next step.  I'm anxious to get this done because these tests
> > would
> > > > have saved me time over the last couple weeks.  The management UI in
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/484 has a set of e2e
> > > tests
> > > > being maintained in another branch so those could also be included in
> > > this
> > > > test suite when the UI makes it into master.
> > > >
> > > > Ideas for an "Acceptance Testing Framework"?  Could Ansible be good
> fit
> > > for
> > > > this since we already have it in our stack?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
> > > > michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ok, yes I agree. In my experience with e2e/acceptance tests,
> they're
> > > best
> > > > > kept general with an emphasis on verifying that all the plumbing
> > works
> > > > > together. So yes, there are definite edge cases I think we'll want
> to
> > > > test
> > > > > here, but I say that with the caveat that I think we should ideally
> > > cover
> > > > > as many non-happy-path cases in unit and integration tests as
> > possible.
> > > > As
> > > > > an example, I don't think it makes sense to cover most of the
> > profiler
> > > > > windowing DSL language edge cases in acceptance tests instead of
or
> > in
> > > > > addition to unit/integration tests unless there is something
> specific
> > > to
> > > > > the integration with a given an environment that we think could be
> > > > > problematic.
> > > > >
> > > > > M
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > No, I'm saying that they shouldn't be restricted to real-world
> > > > use-cases.
> > > > > > The E2E tests I laid out weren't real-world, but they did
> exercise
> > > the
> > > > > > components similar to real-world use-cases.  They should also
be
> > able
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > able to tread outside of the happy-path for those use-cases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
> > > > > > michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "I don't think acceptance tests should loosely associate
with
> > real
> > > > > uses,
> > > > > > > but they should
> > > > > > > be free to delve into weird non-happy-pathways."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not following - are you saying they should *tightly* associate
> > with
> > > > > real
> > > > > > > uses and additonally include non-happy-path?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:57 PM, 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message