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

Tests should be able to set up and tear down CF resources, avoiding manual and stateful configuration #34

Open
deniseyu opened this issue Apr 30, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@deniseyu
Copy link

deniseyu commented Apr 30, 2018

To use this checker, you have to spend at least 5 minutes manually copying GUIDs into the config file. This is error-prone and time-consuming, and feels like an inefficient use of Human Cycles ™️ .

It would be great if I could just pass it a minimal config file that only contains my CF API, admin username, and admin password. The test suite should dynamically create a new CF org, space, broker with pre-configured plans (and register the broker), service instances, and bindings for each test run. At the end of the test run, it should force-delete the broker and the CF org, recursively getting rid of all associated resources.

This would lower the barrier to using this checker and cuts down on the general noise caused by stateful tests.

@leonwanghui
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @deniseyu , I think it's a great idea if we can reach to this goal, but something has to be mentioned here is that this test suite is not prepared only for cf but other platforms (svcat, openshift or fusionstage), which means we should treat the context defined in the specification separately.

So my suggestion is that we should define a reusable and extensible test framework for users to deploy. For now I don't have much clue, but we could work together if you are interested : )

@leonwanghui
Copy link
Collaborator

leonwanghui commented Dec 11, 2018

Hi @deniseyu the test framework has been refactored recently by #50 , could you have a try and give some feedback? If you are ok with the change, this issue would be closed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Inbox
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants