On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Benton <blak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This allows the viewer to see categories of reviews based upon their > >divergence from OpenStack's Jenkins results. I think evaluating > >divergence from Jenkins might be a metric worth consideration. > > I think the only thing this really reflects though is how much the third > party CI system is mirroring Jenkins. > A system that frequently diverges may be functioning perfectly fine and > just has a vastly different code path that it is integration testing so it > is legitimately detecting failures the OpenStack CI cannot. > Exactly. +1 > > -- > Kevin Benton > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Anita Kuno <ante...@anteaya.info> wrote: > >> On 07/03/2014 07:12 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote: >> > Apologies for quoting again the top post of the thread. >> > >> > Comments inline (mostly thinking aloud) >> > Salvatore >> > >> > >> > On 30 June 2014 22:22, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Stackers, >> >> >> >> Some recent ML threads [1] and a hot IRC meeting today [2] brought up >> some >> >> legitimate questions around how a newly-proposed Stackalytics report >> page >> >> for Neutron External CI systems [2] represented the results of an >> external >> >> CI system as "successful" or not. >> >> >> >> First, I want to say that Ilya and all those involved in the >> Stackalytics >> >> program simply want to provide the most accurate information to >> developers >> >> in a format that is easily consumed. While there need to be some >> changes in >> >> how data is shown (and the wording of things like "Tests Succeeded"), I >> >> hope that the community knows there isn't any ill intent on the part of >> >> Mirantis or anyone who works on Stackalytics. OK, so let's keep the >> >> conversation civil -- we're all working towards the same goals of >> >> transparency and accuracy. :) >> >> >> >> Alright, now, Anita and Kurt Taylor were asking a very poignant >> question: >> >> >> >> "But what does CI tested really mean? just running tests? or tested to >> >> pass some level of requirements?" >> >> >> >> In this nascent world of external CI systems, we have a set of issues >> that >> >> we need to resolve: >> >> >> >> 1) All of the CI systems are different. >> >> >> >> Some run Bash scripts. Some run Jenkins slaves and devstack-gate >> scripts. >> >> Others run custom Python code that spawns VMs and publishes logs to >> some >> >> public domain. >> >> >> >> As a community, we need to decide whether it is worth putting in the >> >> effort to create a single, unified, installable and runnable CI >> system, so >> >> that we can legitimately say "all of the external systems are >> identical, >> >> with the exception of the driver code for vendor X being substituted >> in the >> >> Neutron codebase." >> >> >> > >> > I think such system already exists, and it's documented here: >> > http://ci.openstack.org/ >> > Still, understanding it is quite a learning curve, and running it is not >> > exactly straightforward. But I guess that's pretty much understandable >> > given the complexity of the system, isn't it? >> > >> > >> >> >> >> If the goal of the external CI systems is to produce reliable, >> consistent >> >> results, I feel the answer to the above is "yes", but I'm interested to >> >> hear what others think. Frankly, in the world of benchmarks, it would >> be >> >> unthinkable to say "go ahead and everyone run your own benchmark >> suite", >> >> because you would get wildly different results. A similar problem has >> >> emerged here. >> >> >> > >> > I don't think the particular infrastructure which might range from an >> > openstack-ci clone to a 100-line bash script would have an impact on the >> > "reliability" of the quality assessment regarding a particular driver or >> > plugin. This is determined, in my opinion, by the quantity and nature of >> > tests one runs on a specific driver. In Neutron for instance, there is a >> > wide range of choices - from a few test cases in tempest.api.network to >> the >> > full smoketest job. As long there is no minimal standard here, then it >> > would be difficult to assess the quality of the evaluation from a CI >> > system, unless we explicitly keep into account coverage into the >> evaluation. >> > >> > On the other hand, different CI infrastructures will have different >> levels >> > in terms of % of patches tested and % of infrastructure failures. I >> think >> > it might not be a terrible idea to use these parameters to evaluate how >> > good a CI is from an infra standpoint. However, there are still open >> > questions. For instance, a CI might have a low patch % score because it >> > only needs to test patches affecting a given driver. >> > >> > >> >> 2) There is no mediation or verification that the external CI system is >> >> actually testing anything at all >> >> >> >> As a community, we need to decide whether the current system of >> >> self-policing should continue. If it should, then language on reports >> like >> >> [3] should be very clear that any numbers derived from such systems >> should >> >> be taken with a grain of salt. Use of the word "Success" should be >> avoided, >> >> as it has connotations (in English, at least) that the result has been >> >> verified, which is simply not the case as long as no verification or >> >> mediation occurs for any external CI system. >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> 3) There is no clear indication of what tests are being run, and >> therefore >> >> there is no clear indication of what "success" is >> >> >> >> I think we can all agree that a test has three possible outcomes: pass, >> >> fail, and skip. The results of a test suite run therefore is nothing >> more >> >> than the aggregation of which tests passed, which failed, and which >> were >> >> skipped. >> >> >> >> As a community, we must document, for each project, what are expected >> set >> >> of tests that must be run for each merged patch into the project's >> source >> >> tree. This documentation should be discoverable so that reports like >> [3] >> >> can be crystal-clear on what the data shown actually means. The report >> is >> >> simply displaying the data it receives from Gerrit. The community >> needs to >> >> be proactive in saying "this is what is expected to be tested." This >> alone >> >> would allow the report to give information such as "External CI system >> ABC >> >> performed the expected tests. X tests passed. Y tests failed. Z tests >> were >> >> skipped." Likewise, it would also make it possible for the report to >> give >> >> information such as "External CI system DEF did not perform the >> expected >> >> tests.", which is excellent information in and of itself. >> >> >> >> >> > Agreed. In Neutron we have enforced CIs but not yet agreed on what's the >> > minimum set of tests we expect them to run. I reckon this will be fixed >> > soon. >> > >> > I'll try to look at what "SUCCESS" is from a naive standpoint: a CI says >> > "SUCCESS" if the test suite it rans passed; then one should have means >> to >> > understand whether a CI might blatantly lie or tell "half truths". For >> > instance saying it passes tempest.api.network while >> > tempest.scenario.test_network_basic_ops has not been executed is a half >> > truth, in my opinion. >> > Stackalitycs can help here, I think. One could create "CI classes" >> > according to how much they're close to the level of the upstream gate, >> and >> > then parse results posted to classify CIs. Now, before cursing me, I >> > totally understand that this won't be easy at all to implement! >> > Furthermore, I don't know whether how this should be reflected in >> gerrit. >> > >> > >> >> === >> >> >> >> In thinking about the likely answers to the above questions, I believe >> it >> >> would be prudent to change the Stackalytics report in question [3] in >> the >> >> following ways: >> >> >> >> a. Change the "Success %" column header to "% Reported +1 Votes" >> >> b. Change the phrase " Green cell - tests ran successfully, red cell - >> >> tests failed" to "Green cell - System voted +1, red cell - System >> voted -1" >> >> >> > >> > That makes sense to me. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> and then, when we have more and better data (for example, # tests >> passed, >> >> failed, skipped, etc), we can provide more detailed information than >> just >> >> "reported +1" or not. >> >> >> > >> > I think it should not be too hard to start adding minimal measures such >> as >> > "% of voted patches" >> > >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> -jay >> >> >> >> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014- >> >> June/038933.html >> >> [2] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/third_party/2014/ >> >> third_party.2014-06-30-18.01.log.html >> >> [3] http://stackalytics.com/report/ci/neutron/7 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > OpenStack-dev mailing list >> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > >> Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Salvadore. >> >> Some additional things to look at: >> >> Sean Dague has created a tool in stackforge gerrit-dash-creator: >> >> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/gerrit-dash-creator/tree/README.rst >> which has the ability to make interesting queries on gerrit results. One >> such example can be found here: http://paste.openstack.org/show/85416/ >> (Note when this url was created there was a bug in the syntax and this >> url works in chrome but not firefox, Sean tells me the firefox bug has >> been addressed - though this url hasn't been altered with the new syntax >> yet) >> >> This allows the viewer to see categories of reviews based upon their >> divergence from OpenStack's Jenkins results. I think evaluating >> divergence from Jenkins might be a metric worth consideration. >> >> Also a gui representation worth looking at is Mikal Still's gui for >> Neutron ci health: >> http://www.rcbops.com/gerrit/reports/neutron-cireport.html >> and Nova ci health: >> http://www.rcbops.com/gerrit/reports/nova-cireport.html >> >> I don't know the details of how the graphs are calculated in these >> pages, but being able to view passed/failed/missed and compare them to >> Jenkins is an interesting approach and I feel has some merit. >> >> Thanks I think we are getting some good information out in this thread >> and look forward to hearing more thoughts. >> >> Thank you, >> Anita. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > > -- > Kevin Benton > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev