cf-charmers team mailing list archive

[Manuel Garcia <mgarciap@xxxxxxxxx>]

FYI, Tim replied to me and we were able to run Yeti with almost every test passing agains Bosh Lite. Yeti documentation was not specific enough regarding user’s permissions.
We’ll are setting things up to do it against Juju deployment. I hope to have good news by our weekly meeting.



On Apr 24, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Matthew Kocher <mkocher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> We shouldn't be running the yeti tests, just the cats.
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 24, 2014, Manuel Garcia <mgarciap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Matt, Tim, 
> 
> Do you have any concrete information about Yeti running successfully in cf-153 (CI report, anything)? It wouldn’t be productive to continue working on this if we don’t know for sure what the expected result should be.
> If you don’t, then we can probably try to run them agains a cf-153 deployment with Bosh-Lite.
> 
> 
> So far:
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Prismakov <prismakov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/domain_spec.rb:20 # Domains can be used for an app's routes
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/domain_spec.rb:45 # Domains when there are routes using the domain cannot be deleted
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/info_spec.rb:42 # Dynamic app information can be queried for crashes
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/java_java_web_spec.rb:23 # Simple::JavaJavaWeb tomcat validation
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/large_app_spec.rb:24 # Large Applications an app that has large files that are not in the resource pool successfully uploads the large app
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/lifecycle_spec.rb:11 # App lifecycle app serving web requests create/start/edit/stop/delete application
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/lifecycle_spec.rb:77 # App lifecycle basic app is able to scale number of instances
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/lifecycle_spec.rb:131 # App lifecycle app that dies of memory overdose correctly has events
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/node_spec.rb:9 # Node node 0.6 starts the app successfully
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/node_spec.rb:14 # Node node 0.6 supports git modules
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/node_spec.rb:30 # Node node 0.6 supports native extensions via node-gyp
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/node_spec.rb:9 # Node node 0.8 starts the app successfully
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/node_spec.rb:14 # Node node 0.8 supports git modules
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/node_spec.rb:30 # Node node 0.8 supports native extensions via node-gyp
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/node_spec.rb:9 # Node node 0.10 starts the app successfully
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/node_spec.rb:14 # Node node 0.10 supports git modules
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/apps/node_spec.rb:30 # Node node 0.10 supports native extensions via node-gyp
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/buildpacks/admin_buildpack_spec.rb:24 # Admin Buildpacks admin uploads a buildpack uses the uploaded buildpack
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/buildpacks/admin_buildpack_spec.rb:30 # Admin Buildpacks specifying an admin buildpack with --buildpack doesn't use any admin buildpack except the one whose name was specified
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/tools/imagemagick_spec.rb:25 # Tools::ImageMagick Deploy Ruby application that uses RMagick and ImageMagick tools
>> 
>> rspec ./spec/tools/loggregator_spec.rb:62 # Tools::Loggregator can tail app logs
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Alex P.
>> 
> 
> Thank you.
> Manuel
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Manuel Garcia <mgarciap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Thank you Tim.
>> 
>> CATs was driving us crazy and we were spending way too much time on it. However, we learn some things about it for next milestones.
>> 
>> Let’s see how it goes with Yeti. We are behind our schedule with the CI environment.
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:45 AM, Tim Labeeuw <tlabeeuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> If you go to cf-release you should find the tests under https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/tree/v153/src/tests. Those are the compatible test suite. I think CATS is a latter addition at https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/tree/v162/src/acceptance-tests. Sorry I forgot to check which version CATS was introduced.
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> On Apr 23, 2014 6:10 AM, "Manuel Garcia" <mgarciap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi guys, 
>>> 
>>> There is no tags/versions relationship between CF RELEASE and CF Acceptance Tests project.
>>> 
>>> Our current situation is that there is no way to make CATS work agains our Bundle (cf release 153) without us modifying CATS which does not make any sense at all.
>>> You can take a look at James answer email below.
>>> 
>>> Alternatives:
>>> A) Identify if passing tests are enough and custimize CATs to only run ‘compatible’ tests
>>> B) Develop a very simple script to test the following CLI actions: target api, login, create org, create space, switch to space, push a our simple app example, curl and test output, delete app.
>>> 
>>> Action Items:
>>> - Spend few hours with ‘A' only identifying if compatible tests are enough
>>> - Share results and suggestion with the team 
>>> 
>>> Any comments, feedback will be much appreciated.
>>> 
>>> Manuel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: Alexander Lomov <lomov.as@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Subject: Re: [vcap-dev] Running latest CATs tests on CF v153.
>>>> Date: April 23, 2014 at 7:03:53 AM GMT-3
>>>> To: <vcap-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Reply-To: <vcap-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you, James. It really make sense. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 22 April 2014 20:28, James Bayer <jbayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> i appreciate the difficulty. there is a story under consideration to put CATS as a submodule of cf-release [1] so that you'll always know the compatible CATS version for the release # of cloud foundry you are using.
>>>> 
>>>> [1]