On 10/28/2014 06:18 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:08:05PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On 28 October 2014 22:51, Steven Hardy <sha...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:22:36PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
>>>> So this should work and I think its generally good.
>>>>
>>>> But - I'm curious, you only need a single image for devtest to
>>>> experiment with tuskar - the seed - which should be about the same
>>>> speed (or faster, if you have hot caches) than devstack, and you'll
>>>> get Ironic and nodes registered so that the panels have stuff to show.
>>>
>>> TBH it's not so much about speed (although, for me, devstack is faster as
>>> I've not yet mirrored all-the-things locally, I only have a squid cache),
>>> it's about establishing a productive test/debug/hack/re-test workflow.
>>
>> mm, squid-cache should still give pretty good results. If its not, bug
>> time :). That said..
>>
>>> I've been configuring devstack to create Ironic nodes FWIW, so that works
>>> OK too.
>>
>> Cool.
>>
>>> It's entirely possible I'm missing some key information on how to compose
>>> my images to be debug friendly, but here's my devtest frustration:
>>>
>>> 1. Run devtest to create seed + overcloud
>>
>> If you're in dev-of-a-component cycle, I wouldn't do that. I'd run
>> devtest_seed.sh only. The seed has everything on it, so the rest is
>> waste (unless you need all the overcloud bits - in which case I'd
>> still tune things - e.g. I'd degrade to single node, and I'd iterate
>> on devtest_overcloud.sh, *not* on the full plumbing each time).
> 
> Yup, I went round a few iterations of those, e.g running devtest_overcloud
> with -c so I could more quickly re-deploy, until I realized I could drive
> heat directly, so I started doing that :)
> 
> Most of my investigations atm are around investigating Heat issues, or
> testing new tripleo-heat-templates stuff, so I do need to spin up the
> overcloud (and update it, which is where the fun really began ref bug 
> #1383709 and #1384750 ...)
> 
>>> 2. Hit an issue, say a Heat bug (not that *those* ever happen! ;D)
>>> 3. Log onto seed VM to debug the issue.  Discover there are no logs.
>>
>> We should fix that - is there a bug open? Thats a fairly serious issue
>> for debugging a deployment.
> 
> I've not yet raised one, as I wasn't sure if it was either by design, or if
> I was missing some crucial element from my DiB config.
> 
> If you consider it a bug, I'll raise one and look into a fix.
> 
>>> 4. Restart the heat-engine logging somewhere
>>> 5. Realize heat-engine isn't quite latest master
>>> 6. Git pull heat, discover networking won't allow it
>>
>> Ugh. Thats horrid. Is it a fedora thing? My seed here can git pull
>> totally fine - I've depended heavily on that to debug various things
>> over time.
> 
> Not yet dug into it in a lot of detail tbh, my other VMs can access the
> internet fine so it may be something simple, I'll look into it.

Are you sure this is a networking thing?  When I try a git pull I get this:

[root@localhost heat]# git pull
fatal:
'/home/bnemec/.cache/image-create/source-repositories/heat_dc24d8f2ad92ef55b8479c7ef858dfeba8bf0c84'
does not appear to be a git repository
fatal: Could not read from remote repository.

That's actually because the git repo on the seed would have come from
the local cache during the image build.  We should probably reset the
remote to a sane value once we're done with the cache one.

Networking-wise, my Fedora seed can pull from git.o.o just fine though.

> 
>>> 7. scp latest master from my laptop->VM
>>> 8. setup.py install, discover the dependencies aren't all there
>>
>> This one might be docs: heat is installed in a venv -
>> /opt/stack/venvs/heat, so the deps be should in that, not in the
>> global site-packages.
> 
> Aha, I did think that may be the case, but I'd already skipped to step (9)
> by that point :D
> 
>>> 9. Give up and try to recreate issue on devstack
>>
>> :)
>>
>>> I'm aware there are probably solutions to all of these problems, but my
>>> point is basically that devstack on my laptop already solves all of them,
>>> so... maybe I can just use that?  That's my thinking, anyway.
>>
>> Sure - its fine to use devstack. In fact, we don't *want* devtest to
>> supplant devstack, they're solving different problems.
>>
>>> E.g here's my tried, tested and comfortable workflow:
>>>
>>> 1. Run stack.sh on my laptop
>>> 2. Do a heat stack-create
>>> 3. Hit a problem, look at screen logs
>>> 4. Fix problem, restart heat, re-test, git-review, done!
>>>
>>> I realize I'm swimming against the tide a bit here, so feel free to educate
>>> me if there's an easier way to reduce the developer friction that exists
>>> with devtest :)
>>
>> Quite possibly there isn't. Some of your issues are ones we should not
>> at all have, and I'd like to see those removed. But they are different
>> tools for different scenarios, so I'd expect some impedance mismatch
>> doing single-code-base-dev in a prod-deploy-context, and I only asked
>> about the specifics to get a better understanding of whats up - I
>> think its totally appropriate to be doing your main dev with devstack.
> 
> Ok, thanks for the confirmation - I'll report back if/when I get the full
> overcloud working on devstack, given that it doesn't sound like a totally 
> crazy
> thing to spend a bit of time on :)
> 
> Steve
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to