On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com> 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.
This is actually documented here [1] under the "What Tests to Run"
section. Perhaps I haven't done enough work to showcase this. But you
can clearly see what tests are expected of 3rd party Neutron CI
systems there.

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NeutronThirdPartyTesting

> 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

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to