metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Lyle <dlyle65...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] Acceptance Tests
Date Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:07:49 GMT
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