|
Packit Service |
646995 |
#
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
# Things to do for testing
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
#
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* get current tests running
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* this will mean replacing disktest with something
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
(like fio?)
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
PASS -- no need to spend time getting disktest working
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
when (1) it's hard to find, and (2) it's going to be
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
replaced anyway.
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* ensure user is root? -- easy to do
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* have tests create their own target using targetcli and
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
a file? -- this would be much better, but would pull
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
in a requirement for targetcli-fb and friends, plus we
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
would still need a place for a decent-sized (1G?) file.
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* have tests do discovery themselves, instead of requiring
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
that to be done already. Either way, we may still need
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
to know the IQN of our target and the host where it lives.
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
PASS -- we still would have to know two things (IQN and
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
IP:Port). See next item.
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* Have tests figure out the device path, so it doesn't have
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
to be passed in. Passing it in requires the called to
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
login to the remote iscsi target and look at the path
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
in /dev/disk/by-id (for example). If we created the
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
disk, we might have a better chance of guessing its name?
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* Augment tests
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
Right now, the test is a long-ass regression test. Very
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
repetitive and time-consuming. But we also have need of
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
regular unit tests, e.g. for functionality, where a new
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
test could be added each time we find a bug? New tests
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
could include things like:
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
- multipathing
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
- using interface files or not
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
- discovery, with and without authentication
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
- session creation, w/ & w/o auth
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* Gather actual regression data!
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
- Since we are testing all of these combinations, why not
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
keep historical data to see if there are any negative
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
trends (i.e. regressions)? Need to understand fio and bonnie++
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
output better to find a way to gather one or two datapoints
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
(max) per test, out of all the info dumped by these
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
programs.
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* Add in test cases for Discovery and/or Connection validation,
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
which would require either a separate target set up for that,
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
or control of our own target
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* Only allow /dev/disk/by-* paths, as /dev/sd? paths are
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
inherently problematic, since they can change names.
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* Add back in the "big warning" from regression.sh?
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* Add info to the README about how to run the python tests
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* Leave the regression test around, for now? It doesn't run,
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
so maybe it should just be removed?
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
* Add in option to specify which subtests (of 16) are run
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
for each test case. Would make it much faster for testing
|
|
Packit Service |
646995 |
and go/no-go testing?
|