[automated-testing] Tear down - shouldn't it unmount client?

[Jonathan Holloway]

Only where a mount is exec'd in setUp. In some cases, tests are grouped by
Class with the volume created in setUp without a mount. Any tests requiring
a mount handle the mount and subsequent umount before tearDown gets run.

e.g.,
test_volume_create_start_stop_start() is only testing the volume and
doesn't require the mount, whereas...
test_file_dir_create_ops_on_volume() is creating ops on the mounted volume
and does it's own mount/umount.

This file could be broken into a volume only class and a mounted volume
class to handle the mount/umount in tearDown, or even allow the super
GlusterBaseClass.tearDownClass() method do it automatically.

On another note, this test_vvt.py test can probably be eliminated with the
code covered in another volume test suite (or suites) and the volume
verification test step in BVT run using pytest markers against
@pytest.mark.bvt_vvt decorator as I'd originally intended.
The idea there was to create a BVT test from a sample of existing testcases
written in the full test suites--eliminating duplication of code.

Cheers,
Jonathan

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 9:02 AM Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at redhat.com> wrote:

> Teardown (at least where I'm looking at, test_vvt.py) is cleaning up the
> volume.
> Shouldn't it also unmount the client?
>
> TIA,
> Y.
> _______________________________________________
> automated-testing mailing list
> automated-testing at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/automated-testing
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/automated-testing/attachments/20190328/ec6b1509/attachment.html>