metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] Acceptance Tests
Date Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:49:23 GMT
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