Adjust the fixtures used by the functional tests so they
use placement database and web fixtures defined by placement
code. To avoid making redundant changes, the solely placement-
related unit and functional tests are removed, but the placement
code itself is not (yet).
openstack-placement is required by the functional tests. It is not
added to test-requirements as we do not want unit tests to depend
on placement in any way, and we enforce this by not having placement
in the test env.
The concept of tox-siblings is used to ensure that the
placement requirement will be satisfied correctly if there is a
depends-on. To make this happen, the functional jobs defined in
.zuul.yaml are updated to require openstack/placement.
tox.ini has to be updated to use a envdir that is the same
name as job. Otherwise the tox siblings role in ansible cannot work.
The handling of the placement fixtures is moved out of nova/test.py
into the functional tests that actually use it because we do not
want unit tests (which get the base test class out of test.py) to
have anything to do with placement. This requires adjusting some
test files to use absolute import.
Similarly, a test of the comparison function for the api samples tests
is moved into functional, because it depends on placement functionality,
TestUpgradeCheckResourceProviders in unit.cmd.test_status is moved into
a new test file: nova/tests/functional/test_nova_status.py. This is done
because it requires the PlacementFixture, which is only available to
functional tests. A MonkeyPatch is required in the test to make sure that
the right context managers are used at the right time in the command
itself (otherwise some tables do no exist). In the test itself, to avoid
speaking directly to the placement database, which would require
manipulating the RequestContext objects, resource providers are now
created over the API.
Co-Authored-By: Balazs Gibizer <balazs.gibizer@ericsson.com>
Change-Id: Idaed39629095f86d24a54334c699a26c218c6593
When creating a resource provider, if the uuid or name (or both)
of the resource provider is already being used a 409 response is
returned. Prior to this change the error message always mentioned
the name of the resource provider, even if it was not the cause of
the duplication. That's misleading and unfriendly.
The new code will list the field and the value of the field that
was duplicated. From looking at the olso_db code that creates a
DBDuplicateEntry it appears that sometimes, but not always, the
exception could list both fields, so allowance for that is made
in the message output and the related gabbi tests.
Because this changes the error message, but not the error response
code, this does not violate the api interoperability guidelines[1],
so I'm willing to say this doesn't require a microversion, and thus
does not require a spec.
[1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/api_interoperability.html
If we do think this is a violation, then the guideline should be
made more explicit.
Change-Id: Ibafbfd8302977a2b4e9250fbb5ada283b69d3c25
Closes-Bug: #1693349
Chris Dent