Sure Remi, Once I am done consolidating the scripts i will put them in a separate repo on github.
Thanks, Bharat. > On 30-Jan-2016, at 5:14 PM, Remi Bergsma <rberg...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: > > 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/> >>> >>> >>> >>>
