I've tested SoftLayer
Tests run: 60, Failures: 4, Errors: 0, Skipped: 20
Failed tests:
VirtualGuestApiLiveTest.testCreateVirtualGuest:100 » HttpResponse
command: POS...
VirtualGuestBlockDeviceTemplateGroupApiLiveTest.init » OutOfMemory Java
heap s...
SoftLayerComputeServiceLiveTest>BaseComputeServiceLiveTest.testAScriptExecutionAfterBootWithBasicTemplate:232->BaseComputeServiceLiveTest.checkResponseEqualsHostname:319
{id=11041675, providerId=11041675, name=soft-layerr-65f,
location={scope=ZONE, id=dal09, description=Dallas 9, parent=softlayer,
iso3166Codes=[US-TX], metadata={name=dal09}}, group=soft-layerr,
imageId=6731969, os={family=ubuntu, version=14.04, description=Ubuntu /
Ubuntu / 14.04-64 Minimal for VSI, is64Bit=true}, status=RUNNING,
loginPort=22, hostname=soft-layerr-65f.jclouds.org,
privateAddresses=[10.121.159.151], publicAddresses=[169.54.222.58],
hardware={id=11041675, providerId=11041675, name=soft-layerr-65f,
processors=[{cores=1.0, speed=2.0}], ram=1024, volumes=[{id=14403899,
type=SAN, size=25.0, bootDevice=true, durable=false}, {id=14403877,
type=SAN, size=2.0, bootDevice=false, durable=false}],
hypervisor=XenServer, supportsImage=ALWAYS_TRUE}, loginUser=root}:
{output=soft-layerr-65f
, error=, exitStatus=0}
SoftLayerComputeServiceLiveTest>BaseComputeServiceLiveTest.testCreateTwoNodesWithRunScript:357->BaseComputeServiceLiveTest.checkImageIdMatchesTemplate:400
expected [UBUNTU_14_64] but found [6732073]
I'll try to fix them.
Andrea
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Ignasi Barrera <n...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the testing!
>
> I think the only relevant PRs to get merged are:
> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/816
> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/790
> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/188
>
> Being the first one the most important one (I just have to rebase it
> to the latest master after having merged a PR that affects the AWS
> hardware profiles)
>
> Once the AWS PR is in, we should consider releasing 1.9.1. Would it be
> reasonable to release it between this Wednesday-Friday? If the other
> two PRs (and any eventual fix) can be included, the better, but I
> think it once the first one is in we'll be at a very good point to
> release 1.9.1.
>
> WDYT about scheduling the jclouds 1.9.1 release for
> Wednesday/Thursday/Friday? I volunteer to cut it.
>
> I.
>
> On 14 July 2015 at 21:19, Zack Shoylev <zack.shoy...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> > 1.9.x with my latest test fixes works fine with rackspace-cloudfiles-*
> and rackspace-cloudservers-* live tests.
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Zack Shoylev <zack.shoy...@rackspace.com>
> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 8:13 PM
> > To: dev@jclouds.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: 1.9.1 pre-release testing
> >
> > I have some small test fixes, but haven't yet observed anything broken
> in actual code. Still testing, though.
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Shrinand Javadekar <shrin...@maginatics.com>
> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 3:48 PM
> > To: dev@jclouds.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: 1.9.1 pre-release testing
> >
> > I ran live tests against several blobstores with the 1.9.1-SNAPSHOT
> > branch and it worked just fine. Report attached.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Shrinand Javadekar
> > <shrin...@maginatics.com> wrote:
> >> I'll run some live blobstore tests too next week and get back with the
> results.
> >>
> >> -Shri
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Ignasi Barrera <n...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>> Everything is in place to release 1.9.1, but I'd like to propose a
> >>> different approach this time. Usually we run the live tests against
> >>> each RC, but that means cutting new RCs to fix the important live
> >>> tests that fail, which is not an optimal procedure.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to propose a "pre-release" period (a week?) to run the live
> >>> tests and fix them so we can have a smooth and great 1.9,1 release. It
> >>> would be great if we could coordinate some provider testing, as not
> >>> everyone knows the details of every provider (and not everyone has an
> >>> account in each one).
> >>>
> >>> Thinking about the most active contributors, it would be ideal if we
> >>> could split the work like:
> >>>
> >>> @nacx: aws-ec2, digitalocean and chef.
> >>> @abayer: Could you help with aws-ec2?
> >>> @danbroudy: google-compute-engine, google-cloud-storage.
> >>> @andreaturli: softlayer, docker.
> >>> @zack: rackspace-cloudservers, rackspace-cloudfiles.
> >>> @devjcsrj: can you give some love to ProfitBricks?
> >>> @ilgrosso: could you rune the live tests on Azure Compute?
> >>> @ccustine: would you be able to run the HPCloud Compute live tests?
> >>> @gaul: blobmaster! :)
> >>>
> >>> @all-mailing-list-subscribers: Any live test feedback on any provider
> >>> is very welcome, and PRs are very welcome too!
> >>>
> >>> Please, don't misunderstand this as an assignment of tasks! I'm just
> >>> thinking out loud about a way to coordinate work so we can test and
> >>> fix as many broken windows as we can, without duplicating efforts and
> >>> without converting it in a tedious task. Running and fixing live tests
> >>> (there shouldn't be many live tests failing) shouldn't be a tough
> >>> effort, and the benefits for the project are huge.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If there is an agreement, I'd propose a week of live test run&fix and
> >>> cut the 1.9.1 release on July 15-20. Does this sound like a good plan?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I.
>
