This is nice ! -AJ
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Saminda Wijeratne <[email protected]>wrote: > To see how it might go I created a simple spreadsheet [1] to record test > results. "0" for untested, positve value for passed tests and negative > value for failed tests. > > I realized it would be overwhelming for a single developer to carryout all > the tests so I think its easier to just go on with the usual tests we do > and mark them in the spreadsheet what we covered and later RM (or someone) > can figureout a way to carryout tests which was not covered by anyone. > > Let me know if anyone needs edit privileges to the spreadsheet. > > Saminda > > 1. > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqYI3-ZrFz-EdFI0S3htaWJ1MDV4RE1WM19Ga0lhbEE&usp=sharing#gid=0 > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Amila Jayasekara <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> +1, please. >> >> - Thejaka Amila >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I was thinking of an actual checklist where we can check-off/vote-off >>> once each test is done. Perhaps we can start with a simple spreadsheet with >>> the Tests specified by Raman added. >>> >>> + 1. Here is an example from Rave. Template for Quality Assurance [1] >>> and an example [2]. >>> >>> Bottom line, for atleast few days during the release process, we all >>> should become the QA Team. >>> >>> Currently, we are doing scripted testing like 5, 10 minute tutorials and >>> grid job submissions and lot of code still does not get touched. As an >>> example, provenance aware search became nonfunctional and until Sanjaya >>> pointed it out, we did not notice it. It will be useful, if randomly (or by >>> co-ordination) we all test an RC against various features and then post >>> them to DISCUSS thread. Otherwise, the releases just become pointing to a >>> tag. We need to move from releases being a formality to every release >>> robusting the code. We have so much active development and if we turn some >>> energy to testing and bug fixing, I think our users will be happy with the >>> outcome. >>> >>> Suresh >>> [1] - http://wiki.apache.org/rave/ReleaseManagement/QualityAssurance >>> [2] - >>> http://wiki.apache.org/rave/ReleaseManagement/ReleaseSchedule/VerificationResults-0.11 >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Chathuri Wimalasena < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > There is a general checklist added by Raman [1], which covers basic >>> functionalities. >>> > >>> > Thanks.. >>> > Chathuri >>> > >>> > [1] >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRAVATA/Airavata+Release+Testing >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Saminda Wijeratne < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > Thanks Amila for weighing in. Comments inline: >>> > >>> > On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Amila Jayasekara < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi Suresh, >>> > > >>> > > I have some comments inline. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > Hi All, >>> > > >>> > > This is a very good question. Lets discuss these options so we are >>> consistent across releases. >>> > > >>> > > If we look at the way we are doing releases, we are calling a >>> feature freeze and code freeze and cutting a release. Most of the time, our >>> build is broken. Jenkins statistics for Airavata is not looking good at >>> all [1]. >>> > > >>> > > There is something wrong with the Jenkins configurations. I tried to >>> figure out sometime back I was unable to do so. Even though builds are >>> successful in our local machines they are failing intermittently in Jenkins. >>> > > >>> > > We are barely fixing the build a day before the release, putting out >>> an RC and testing on it and releasing it in a quick succession. >>> > > >>> > > This is not entirely true. For the past few months I only >>> experienced one or two build breaks (maybe less). I build couple of times >>> per week. I believe usually build is stable and with integration tests >>> passing, we always get a workable version. I know its not a good practice >>> not to rely on the build server. But commiters have personal discipline to >>> keep the build stable. Nevertheless we must fix Jenkins configuration issue. >>> > >>> > May be we should put focus on Jenkins configuration? Any volunteers? >>> > >>> > > >>> > > As we are seeing on user lists, we have users upgrading with every >>> release. I think we should increase the release quality. >>> > > >>> > > +1 for this. >>> > > >>> > > I would vote for atleast 3 RC’s per release. If we are not finding >>> issues in first RC, I would say, either the software has magically become >>> too too good or we are not doing through testing. I suspect the later. >>> > How about we keep a checklist of release tests? I know we already send >>> a mail on dev on what needs to be tested for each RC, but I need that is >>> too abstract. For core developers of Airavata I think there should be test >>> cases predefined (a test document if you may). Since we have several core >>> developers in the list we can atleast decide upon what must be tested and >>> make sure that each test case is covered by atleast one developer for a RC. >>> > > >>> > > I guess you mentioned this under assumption that build is not stable. >>> > >>> > Half of my assumption is on Jenkins, so if builds are ok and Jenkins >>> is thinking wrong, then we can alleviate it by fixing it. >>> > >>> > > I will propose the following, please counter it and lets agree on a >>> process: >>> > > >>> > > * Lets post a RC1 as is (which means it will have a snapshot). This >>> pack, we should all test as much as possible, so its more of a test >>> candidate then a release candidate. If it helps, we can use the name TC1. I >>> am not particular on the naming but trying to emphasize the need for having >>> atleast more RC's per release. >>> > > >>> > > I am not sure whether we really need a TC. The release manager >>> should be doing some verifications on the RC before putting it out. >>> Therefore it should be a RC. Anyhow i am fine having TC concept and trying >>> it out. >>> > >>> > We probably should stick to RC, but I think the onus should not be on >>> the RM to test it. They should coordinate and mobilize every one to do the >>> testing including doing a testing bit more than others. But my point is, we >>> should test and the only way to do that is to put a series of RC’s and have >>> focused testing. >>> > A TC should be something internal IMO. But when we are going for a >>> release it should be alpha, beta and then RC releases. I think it need not >>> be mandatory for the RMs to do pre-evaluation of the builds other than >>> making sure all the unit tests and integration tests pass. Once an RC is >>> confirmed of release quality I think we can follow the actual release cycle >>> from the trunk itself with since its in a code freeze anyway. >>> > >>> > Suresh >>> > >>> > > >>> > > What we really need is set of verifiable test cases. >>> > > >>> > > Thank you >>> > > Regards >>> > > Amila >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > * If we do not expose significant issues in RC/TC 1 then we proceed >>> with RC2 which will follow the proper release process. But if we have a >>> reasonable issues bought out, we need a RC2/TC2 also without following the >>> release process. >>> > > >>> > > * The key thing I am proposing is, we keep doing RC/TC’s until we >>> all are sure the quality is good enough with documented known issues. When >>> we are sure, then we proceed to have RC with proper release process. >>> > > >>> > > So this will mean more testing and twice (or more) the times every >>> one has to test, but I think it is worth it. This might also get over the 6 >>> week release cycle, but I think we need to trade for some quality releases >>> as we march towards 1.0. >>> > > >>> > > Suresh >>> > > [1] - https://builds.apache.org/job/Apache%20Airavata/ >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Dec 15, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi Chathuri, >>> > > > >>> > > > I think having snapshot as the version in RC is wrong. Every RC >>> has to be like a release and if it pass we just call a vote/discussion >>> thread and do the release. If we do with snapshot and if things go right, >>> then have to change versions and test again. But we can do the release just >>> by changing snapshot without testing but that wrong AFAIT. >>> > > > >>> > > > I remember doing this mistake in earlier release with RC1 build. I >>> think we can stick to the release management instructions in >>> airavata.org. >>> > > > >>> > > > Regards >>> > > > Lahiru >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Chathuri Wimalasena < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > Hi All, >>> > > > >>> > > > Airavata 0.11 RC1[1] is ready for testing. >>> > > > >>> > > > Here are some pointers for testing >>> > > > • Verify the fixed issue for this release [2] >>> > > > • Verify the basic workflow composition/execution/monitoring >>> scenarios from >>> > > > • Airavata 5 & 10 min tutorials [3],[4] >>> > > > • Verify airavata client samples >>> > > > • Verify the stability with derby & mysql backend databases >>> > > > • Verify that the XBaya JNLP distribution works >>> > > > • Verify deploying Airavata server in a tomcat distribution >>> > > > Please report any issues[5] if you encounter while testing. Thank >>> you for your time in validating the release. >>> > > > >>> > > > Regards, >>> > > > Chathuri (On behalf of Airavata PMC) >>> > > > >>> > > > [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airavata/0.11/RC1/ >>> > > > [2] >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-278?jql=project%20%3D%20AIRAVATA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.11%22%20ORDER%20BY%20status%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC >>> > > > [3] >>> http://airavata.apache.org/documentation/tutorials/airavata-in-5-minutes.html >>> > > > [4] >>> http://airavata.apache.org/documentation/tutorials/airavata-in-10-minutes.html >>> > > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > System Analyst Programmer >>> > > > PTI Lab >>> > > > Indiana University >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >
