Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Eric Harney wrote: > On 06/19/2017 09:22 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: >> On 6/16/2017 8:58 AM, Eric Harney wrote: >>> I'm not convinced yet that this failure is purely Ceph-specific, at a >>> quick look. >>> >>> I think what happens here is,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On 06/19/2017 09:22 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 6/16/2017 8:58 AM, Eric Harney wrote: >> I'm not convinced yet that this failure is purely Ceph-specific, at a >> quick look. >> >> I think what happens here is, unshelve performs an asynchronous delete >> of a glance image, and returns as

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On 6/16/2017 8:58 AM, Eric Harney wrote: I'm not convinced yet that this failure is purely Ceph-specific, at a quick look. I think what happens here is, unshelve performs an asynchronous delete of a glance image, and returns as successful before the delete has necessarily completed. The check

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On 6/16/2017 9:46 AM, Eric Harney wrote: On 06/16/2017 10:21 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: I don't think merging tests that are showing failures, then blacklisting them, is the right approach. And as Eric points out, this isn't necessarily just a failure with Ceph. There is a legitimate logical

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On 6/16/2017 8:13 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: Yeah there is a distinction between the ceph nv job that runs on nova/cinder/glance changes and the ceph job that runs on os-brick and glance_store changes. When we made the tempest dsvm ceph job non-voting we failed to mirror that in the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On 6/16/2017 3:32 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: So, before we go further, ceph seems to be -nv on all projects right now, right? So I get there is some debate on that patch, but is it blocking anything? Ceph is voting on os-brick patches. So it does block some things when we run into this

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

> > So, before we go further, ceph seems to be -nv on all projects right > now, right? So I get there is some debate on that patch, but is it > blocking anything? > Ceph is voting on os-brick patches. So it does block some things when we run into this situation. But again, we should avoid

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On 06/16/2017 10:46 AM, Eric Harney wrote: > On 06/16/2017 10:21 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: >> >> I don't think merging tests that are showing failures, then blacklisting >> them, is the right approach. And as Eric points out, this isn't >> necessarily just a failure with Ceph. There is a legitimate

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On 06/16/2017 09:51 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: >> >> It would be useful to provide detailed examples. Everything is trade >> offs, and having the conversation in the abstract is very difficult to >> understand those trade offs. >> >> -Sean >> > > We've had this issue in Cinder and os-brick.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On 06/16/2017 10:21 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > I don't think merging tests that are showing failures, then blacklisting > them, is the right approach. And as Eric points out, this isn't > necessarily just a failure with Ceph. There is a legitimate logical > issue with what this particular test

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

> > yea, we had such cases and decided to have blacklist of tests not > suitable for ceph. ceph job will exclude the tests failing on ceph. > Jon is working on this - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459774/ > I don't think merging tests that are showing failures, then blacklisting them, is the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

Excerpts from Ghanshyam Mann's message of 2017-06-16 23:05:08 +0900: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 06/16/2017 09:51 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > >>> > >>> It would be useful to provide detailed examples. Everything is trade > >>> offs, and having the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 06/16/2017 09:51 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: >>> >>> It would be useful to provide detailed examples. Everything is trade >>> offs, and having the conversation in the abstract is very difficult to >>> understand those trade

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

Is there a guarantee anywhere that the unshelve API behaves how this tempest test expects it to? >> >> >> Original Mail >> Sender: <s...@dague.net>; >> To: <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>; >> Date: 2017/06/16 05:25 >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On 06/16/2017 09:51 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: >> >> It would be useful to provide detailed examples. Everything is trade >> offs, and having the conversation in the abstract is very difficult to >> understand those trade offs. >> >> -Sean >> > > We've had this issue in Cinder and os-brick.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

> > It would be useful to provide detailed examples. Everything is trade > offs, and having the conversation in the abstract is very difficult to > understand those trade offs. > > -Sean > We've had this issue in Cinder and os-brick. Usually around Ceph, but if you follow the user

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

der: <s...@dague.net>; > To: <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>; > Date: 2017/06/16 05:25 > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems > > > On 06/15/2017 01:04 PM, Brian Rosmaita wrote: >> This isn't a glance-specific problem

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471352/ may be an example Original Mail Sender: <s...@dague.net> To: <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: 2017/06/16 05:25 Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems On 06/15/2017 01:04 PM, Br

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

On 06/15/2017 01:04 PM, Brian Rosmaita wrote: > This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite > a few times recently. > > Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not > gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be merged in > tempest,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

Excerpts from Brian Rosmaita's message of 2017-06-15 13:04:39 -0400: > This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite > a few times recently. > > Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not > gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be

[openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems

This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite a few times recently. Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be merged in tempest, but wind up breaking our gate. We aren't claiming that the