Please put it in a separate repo. There’s way too much stuff in the cloudstack repo already, IMHO and we should be splitting out, not adding more :-)
Regards, Remi On 29/01/16 08:22, "Erik Weber" <terbol...@gmail.com> wrote: >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/> >> >> >> >>
