I'd love to see this in the cloudstack repository. Others might have an easier time getting access to hardware, and could use it to help test releases/PR
Erik Den fredag 29. januar 2016 skrev Bharat Kumar <bharat.ku...@citrix.com> følgende: > yes, we would be sharing it with the community and get this running in the > ACS infra. > Currently it can create a cloudstack test bed, runs tests and email the > results. > > Here are some details on how this works and what is needed to set this up. > > * we use jenkins, cobbler, puppet and marvin to create cloudstack > setup. > * jenkins triggers the test runs, collects the test results and mails > them. > * cobbler is use to image the hosts and create Management server. > * The management server is a VM and each time a test run is triggered > we pull the latest code, build (dev setup) the MS and run it. > * Need IPMI enabled servers to uses and Hosts in cloudstack setup. > Cobbler installs the required OS on these hosts. > * We use a XenServer to create management server VMs. > > The resources required to set this up. > > * We need two servers to host the VMs used in CI, one XenServer to > host the Cloustack management servers and at least 3 IPMI enabled servers > per cloudstack setup to run the BVTs. > * some set of IPs (public and private IPs) and vlans. > > Once we have the resources in ACS infra we can start setting this up. But > some work needs to > be done to integrate this with the github to test and post the results in > the PRs instead of mailing them. > > I think the best way to share it will be by implementing this in the ACS > infra. Once we do this every one can pitch in, replicate and further > contribute to this. > > Meanwhile i will commit the scripts to set this up and keep this going. > > Thanks, > Bharat. > > > On 28-Jan-2016, at 7:37 PM, Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com <javascript:;> > <mailto:terbol...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>> wrote: > > Why not share it as is, then the community could help improving this, > rather than this being a single company effort? > > -- > Erik > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Bharat Kumar <bharat.ku...@citrix.com > <javascript:;><mailto:bharat.ku...@citrix.com <javascript:;>>> > wrote: > > Hi All, > > I agree that we need to have a CI to deal with the large volume of PRs. > The current travis CI is not good enough as it runs only simulator tests. > We identified this issue and came up with a effective CI for automating > test runs for a each PR. This is already functional, with few github > integration aspects pending. We are internally stabilizing it before > sharing it. > > We have been in touch with David Nalley ( CC’ed ) in making this > operational for entire community using ACS infra. > > > For your reference, here is the FS I have shared with the community > earlier and also in this thread before, your feedback is welcome. > ( > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Test+bed+orchestrator+and+test+runner+to+enable+continuos+integration > ). > > Thanks, > Bharat. > > > > > On 28-Jan-2016, at 4:26 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > <javascript:;><mailto: > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;>>> wrote: > > All, > > I’m sorry to get to have the PRs merged without adhering to the strict > testing requirements. While I think PRs were alright and it did not break > anything, the way it was merged made people uncomfortable that there is > some sort of haste in doing this fast which there is none. > > I’ll not repeat this and hope you understand that I never had any hidden > agenda but to simply help people with some PRs. > > Regards. > > On 28-Jan-2016, at 11:36 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com > <javascript:;><mailto: > run...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > My proposal to freeze until we get CI was indeed due to seeing Rohit’s > commit but was by no means a personal attack or judgment. > > We have lots of PR pending (as mentioned before by Remi) and we need > people to help review and test. > So thanks to Rohit. > > My only concerns were two fold: > > 1- We need to keep to adhere to our release principles: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up > > Hence I replied to some PR asking if they needed to be merged directly in > master or not and wondered about the release branches. > > With so many releases in flight it is not yet clear to me where we start > to apply a PR ? > > 2- We need to keep testing and post results of tests. > > Currently it is manual and but there has been a strong guarantee in the > last releases that the PR where not going to break things. > While I agree that some PR are small and *should* not break things, > history has shown that even small unrelated things *somehow* can affect the > behavior of cloudstack. > > So I proposed a freeze because: > > - Remi stepped down as RM and we don’t have an official RM yet. > - The code has reached a solid state and we don’t want to do anything that > changes that > - We have a proposal for LTS on the floor > - We still don’t have CI. > > So my standpoint is that we focused in the last 6 months on getting our > release principles right (pending LTS principles), code has stabilized and > we can release. Awesome. > > Now is probably a good time to concentrate our limited resources on > figuring out automated CI. > > - For instance as far as I know Travis is bonkers…(reports green but does > not do anything) > - And with citrix stepping out, we need to take control of the jenkins > slaves (some of which are on AWS and still paid by Citrix…) > > My email while triggered by seeing Rohit’s commits, was not a judgement or > critic of his actions, so let’s not get into a personal argument here. > > -Sebastien > > On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > So, since some have directly (over IM etc) or indirectly have thrown > allegations on me since I merged most of the PRs. > Here is a list of those 12 PRs and answers on why they were merged on > case-by-case basis. > Please keep any further replies technical and to the specific PR, please > point out and revert if needed: > > 1. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1288 > > Enough LGTMs, JS related change and fix tested with UI screenshot from > Remi. I personally looked at the diff and therefore then merged. > > 2. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1274/files > > Enough LGTMs, a simple NPE fix one-liner. I personally thought we can > cheat here and given Travis/Jenkins passed I merged it. > > 3. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1261/files > > Enough LGTMs, the diff only removed unused variable leading to change in > the constructor definition. Explicit integration tests are not necessary as > it’d simply dead-code removal and as the simulator smoke tests passed with > Travis/Jenkins passed so I merged it. > > 4. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1048 > > Enough LGTMs. This change is related to a marvin test itself where it adds > 2 new test methods — so no need to run regression integration test. The > integration test result of the marvin test was shared in the comment. PR > merged on this basis. > > 5. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1044 > > Enough LGTMs and regression tests results (shared as attachments by Daan, > in case someone missed), so merged. > > 6. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/969 > > Enough LGTMs and regression tests results (shared as attachments by Daan, > in case someone missed), so merged. > > 7. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/855 > > Enough LGTMs and regression tests results by Remi, so merged. > > 8. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/831 > > Enough LGTMs and only text changes in API doc-string so merged given > Travis/Jenkins passed. > > 9. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/830/files > > Enough LGTMs and NPE fixes, so no explicit integration tests required > given Travis/Jenkins passed. > > 10. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1256/files > > Enough LGTMs and simple Java OOP fix with Travis/Jenkins passed so merged > this. I’m aware of this codebase. > > 11. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1240 > > Enough LGTMs, the changes would require manual tests wrt usage server etc > as well as confirmed in comments. I had seen the regression test result (of > the new/modified marvin test wrt of the feature) so merged. The regression > test suite does not include this among other tests. > > 12. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1289 > > Enough LGTMs, this was a findbugs related fix. Travis/Jenkins passed on it > and the findbugs mvn job result was shared to confirm that the fix works > now. This was not merged by me. > > Regards. > > > > Rohit Yadav > Software Architect , ShapeBlue > d: | s: +44 203 603 0540 | m: +91 8826230892 > e: rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com <javascript:;> | t: | w: > www.shapeblue.com > a: 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK > > Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue > Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under > license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a > company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape > Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of > South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is > a registered trademark. > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended > solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or > opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily > represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the > intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based > upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender > if you believe you have received this email in error. > > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services: > IaaS Cloud Design & Build | CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework > CloudStack Consulting | CloudStack Software Engineering > CloudStack Infrastructure Support | CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses > > > Regards. > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services: > IaaS Cloud Design & Build< > http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – rapid > IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> > CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> | > CloudStack Software Engineering< > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> > CloudStack Infrastructure Support< > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | CloudStack > Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> > > > >
