On 08/06/2014 05:48 PM, John Griffith wrote: > I have to agree with Duncan here. I also don't know if I fully > understand the limit in options. Stress test seems like it could/should > be different (again overlap isn't a horrible thing) and I don't see it > as siphoning off resources so not sure of the issue. We've become quite > wrapped up in projects, programs and the like lately and it seems to > hinder forward progress more than anything else.
Today we have 2 debug domains that developers have to deal with when tests fails: * project level domain (unit tests) * cross project (Tempest) Even 2 debug domains is considered too much for most people, as we get people that understand one or another, and just throw up their hands when they are presented with a failure outside their familiar debug domain. So if Rally was just taken in as a whole, as it exists now, it would create a 3rd debug domain. It would include running a bunch of tests that we run in cross project and project level domain, yet again, written a different way. And when it fails this will be another debug domain. I think a 3rd debug domain isn't going to help any of the OpenStack developers or Operators. Moving the test payload into Tempest hopefully means getting a more consistent model for all these tests so when things fail, there is some common pattern people are familiar with to get to the bottom of things. As opaque as Tempest runs feel to people, there has been substantial effort in providing first failure dumps to get as much information about what's wrong as possible. I agree things could be better, but you will be starting that work all over from scratch with Rally again. It also means we could potentially take advantage of the 20,000 Tempest runs we do every week. We're actually generating a ton of data now that is not being used for analysis. We're at a point in Tempest development where to make some data based decisions on which tests need extra attention, which probably need to get dropped, we need this anyway. > I'm also not convinced that Tempest is where all things belong, in fact > I've been thinking more and more that a good bit of what Tempest does > today should fall more on the responsibility of the projects themselves. > For example functional testing of features etc, ideally I'd love to > have more of that fall on the projects and their respective teams. That > might even be something as simple to start as saying "if you contribute > a new feature, you have to also provide a link to a contribution to the > Tempest test-suite that checks it". Sort of like we do for unit tests, > cross-project tracking is difficult of course, but it's a start. The > other idea is maybe functional test harnesses live in their respective > projects. > > Honestly I think who better to write tests for a project than the folks > building and contributing to the project. At some point IMO the QA team > isn't going to scale. I wonder if maybe we should be thinking about > proposals for delineating responsibility and goals in terms of > functional testing? I 100% agree in getting some of Tempest existing content out and into functional tests. Honestly I imagine a Tempest that's 1/2 the # of tests a year away. Mostly it's going to be about ensuring that projects have the coverage before we delete the safety nets. And I 100% agree on getting some better idea on functional boundaries. But I think that's something we need some practical experience on first. Setting a policy without figuring out what in practice works is something I expect wouldn't work so well. My expectation is this is something we're going to take a few stabs at post J3, and bring into summit for discussion. ... So the question is do we think there should be 2 or 3 debug domains for developers and operators on tests? My feeling is 2 puts us in a much better place as a community. The question is should Tempest provide data analysis on it's test runs or should that be done in completely another program. Doing so in another program means that all the deficiencies of the existing data get completely ignored (like variability per run, interactions between tests, between tests and periodic jobs, difficulty in time accounting of async ops) to produce some pretty pictures that miss the point, because they aren't measuring a thing that's real. And the final question is should Tempest have an easier to understand starting point than a tox command, like and actual cli for running things. I think it's probably clear that it should. It would probably actually make Tempest less big and scary for people. Because I do think 'do one job and do it well' is completely consistent with 'run tests across OpenStack projects and present that data in a consumable way'. The question basically is whether it's believed that collecting timing analysis of test results is a separate concern from collecting correctness results of test results. The Rally team would argue that they are. I'd argue that they are not. ... If Rally wants to stay as an ecosystem tool that's not part of the integrated release, that's one thing. But they current contributors really want these kind of features baked in. Ok, lets do that with parts that we who have spent a ton of time making this stuff work in practice actually understand. Rally in it's current form is young, has not been run a few million times, and so hasn't see what happens at the edges of OpenStack. That's fine and expected. But it also means that all the hard lessons we've learned about the dangers of autoconfiguration (and accidentally stopping testing function that should be working because of config changes), the variability problem of normal distributions of test runs, the challenges of getting to the bottom of failures when things go terribly wrong (which they will when run a ton). Going full steam ahead in a parallel effort here means that all those lessons will have to be discovered all over again. That's time wasted. The solutions to address these in integrated projects will now come from at least 2 different, and competing directions. For instance, right now Rally is basically proposing a giant amount of Rally specific instrumentation of all of OpenStack - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105096/, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103825/ Instrumenting OpenStack is a good idea. But to keep it from turning into a pile of mud we have to figure out how this relates to other outputs in the system. Like logging. Does this mean we can drop request logging in these cases? Or are we going to collect multiple versions of the same data at different points in the pipeline so the numbers don't add up. A structured dynamic log event mechanism would actually be incredibly useful to OpenStack. There is a hint of how you could get there from osprofiler today, but we should have that conversation, not just go and merge that whole stack. ... Because at the end of the day every effort has a cost. It's not just the cost of the developers working on Rally, it's the coordination costs that adding another cross project effort into the mix that every program needs to independently coordinate with. I think we're already stretched to our limits as a community on cross project coordination. So doing this another time is something that doesn't feel healthy to me right now. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev