From: Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub <yehuda@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Gaul <andrew@gaul.org>
Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, Alfredo Deza <adeza@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: s3-tests development
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:11:45 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <89668076.12410416.1425057105722.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150227023734.GE21215@sherlock>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Gaul" <andrew@gaul.org>
> To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:37:35 PM
> Subject: s3-tests development
>
> Hello cephalopods, I use s3-tests to test S3Proxy[1], Apache jclouds,
> and an internal project. While s3-tests has good functionality as it
> exists, the project has not progressed much over the last six months. I
> have submitted over 20 pull requests to fix incorrect tests and for
> additional test coverage but most remain unreviewed[2]. Further
Right. We do need to be more responsive. The main reason we took our time was that these tests are used for the ceph nightly qa tests, and any changes in these that exposes new incompatibility will fail these. We'd rather first have the issue fixed, then merge the change. An alternative way to doing it is to open a ceph tracker issue about the incompatibility, mark the test as 'fails_on_rgw', in which case we could merge it immediately.
> s3-tests remains biased towards Ceph and not the AWS de facto standard,
> failing to run against the latter due to TooManyBuckets failures[3].
Not sure what's the appropriate way to attack this one. Maybe the create_bucket function could keep a list of created buckets and then remove them if encountering this error using lru.
> Finally some features like V4 signature support[4] will require more
> extensive changes. We are at-risk of diverging; how can we best move
> forward together?
We'd be happy with more tests, and with more features tested even if these weren't implemented yet. It can later help with the development of these features. E.g., I looked a few weeks back at v4 signatures, and having such a test would have helped. The only thing we need though would be a way to easily disable such tests. So adding 'fails_on_rgw', or some other way to detect would help a lot.
Thanks,
Yehuda
>
> [1] https://github.com/andrewgaul/s3proxy
> [2] https://github.com/ceph/s3-tests/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr
> [3] https://github.com/ceph/s3-tests/issues/25
> [4] https://github.com/ceph/s3-tests/issues/35
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-27 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-27 2:37 s3-tests development Andrew Gaul
2015-02-27 8:56 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy
2015-02-27 17:11 ` Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub [this message]
2015-02-27 17:19 ` Alfredo Deza
2015-02-27 18:26 ` Andrew Gaul
2015-02-27 18:31 ` Sage Weil
2015-02-27 20:36 ` Alfredo Deza
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=89668076.12410416.1425057105722.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com \
--to=yehuda@redhat.com \
--cc=adeza@redhat.com \
--cc=andrew@gaul.org \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.