Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixed integration tests to perform end-to-end fully #261

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 24, 2017

Conversation

ricardogpsf
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR is intented to fix integration tests self dependencies.
Some test will still failing but they are expected to fail (due the OV Appliance can not support some features, for example)

The tests were executed using OV 3.10.
All supported apis (200, 300 and 500) were tested.
You need install "License for HPE Synergy 8 Gb Fibre Channel upgrade" before the tests.

NOTE:
1- One test to Drive Enclosure is failing due a possible bug, I'll open a issue for it (failing to all apis that support this resource):

OneviewSDK::API500::Synergy::DriveEnclosure#patch sends a patch request to the resource
      Failure/Error: expect(item['uidState']).to eq(new_state)

        expected: "On"
             got: "Off"

        (compared using ==)
      Shared Example Group: "DriveEnclosureUpdateExample" called from ./spec/integration/resource/api500/synergy/drive_enclosure/update_spec.rb:17
      # ./spec/integration/shared_examples/drive_enclosure/update.rb:44:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'

2 - One test to Storage System is failing due a possible bug, I'll open a issue for it (failing only to api300 Synergy):

OneviewSDK::API300::Synergy::StorageSystem#set_refresh_state Refreshing a storage system
      Failure/Error: expect { storage_system.set_refresh_state('RefreshPending') }.not_to raise_error

        expected no Exception, got #<OneviewSDK::BadRequest: 400 BAD REQUEST {"errorSource":null,"nestedErrors":[],"errorCode":"STRM_BAD...t updating other properties on the resource. The following property has changed: actualNetworkUri"}> with backtrace:
          # ./lib/oneview-sdk/exceptions.rb:28:in `raise!'
          # ./lib/oneview-sdk/rest.rb:229:in `response_handler'
          # ./lib/oneview-sdk/resource.rb:217:in `update'
          # ./lib/oneview-sdk/resource/api200/storage_system.rb:149:in `set_refresh_state'
          # ./spec/integration/shared_examples/storage_system/update.rb:39:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>'
          # ./spec/integration/shared_examples/storage_system/update.rb:39:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'
      Shared Example Group: "StorageSystemUpdateExample" called from ./spec/integration/resource/api300/synergy/storage_system/update_spec.rb:5
      # ./spec/integration/shared_examples/storage_system/update.rb:39:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'

Issues Resolved

#127

Check List

  • New functionality includes testing.
    • All tests pass ($ rake test).
  • New functionality has been documented in the README if applicable.
    • New functionality has been thoroughly documented in the examples (please include helpful comments).
  • Changes are documented in the CHANGELOG.

Copy link
Contributor

@fgbulsoni fgbulsoni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good.
Just:

1- If the drive enclosure issue is something intermitent or related to your emulator, it is likely not necessary to raise an issue
2- The Storage System one does look like it needs further investigation, so it should be followed up on.

:octocat:

VolumeTemplate: [:StoragePool]
VolumeTemplate: [:StoragePool],
WebServerCertificate: [],
ClientCertificate: []
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please, put in alphabetical order.

@@ -15,9 +15,10 @@
let(:item_attributes_2) { JSON.load(item_attributes.to_json) }

describe '#update', if: api_version <= 300 do
it '#updating fc_network unmanaged ports' do
xit '#updating fc_network unmanaged ports' do
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be good to describe why this test is not run.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, this test should not be skipped. I'll fix it. Thanks. =)

@ricardogpsf ricardogpsf merged commit b11a352 into master Aug 24, 2017
@aalexmonteiro aalexmonteiro deleted the enhancement/end_to_end_fluid branch August 25, 2017 14:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants