On Nov 17, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@outlook.com> wrote:

> Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Denis Makogon<dmako...@mirantis.com>  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:26 PM, James Page<james.p...@ubuntu.com>  wrote:
>>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>> Hi Denis
>>>> On 17/11/14 07:43, Denis Makogon wrote:
>>>>> During Paris Design summit oslo.messaging session was raised good
>>>>> question about maintaining ZeroMQ driver in upstream (see section
>>>>> “dropping ZeroMQ support in oslo.messaging” at [1]) . As we all
>>>>> know, good thoughts are comming always after. I’d like to propose
>>>>> several improvements in process of maintaining and developing of
>>>>> ZeroMQ driver in upstream.
>>>>> Contribution focus. As we all see, that there are enough patches
>>>>> that are trying to address certain problems related to ZeroMQ
>>>>> driver.
>>>>> Few of them trying to add functional tests, which is definitely
>>>>> good, but … there’s always ‘but’, they are not “gate”-able.
>>>> I'm not sure I understand you statement about them not being
>>>> "gate"-able - the functional/unit tests currently proposed for the zmq
>>>> driver run fine as part of the standard test suite execution - maybe
>>>> the confusion is over what 'functional' actually means, but in my
>>>> opinion until we have some level of testing of this driver, we can't
>>>> effectively make changes and fix bugs.
>>> I do agree that there's a confusion what "functional testing" means.
>>> Another thing, what the best solution is? Unit tests are welcome, but they
>>> are still remain to be units (they are using mocks, etc.)
>>> I'd try to define what 'fuctional testing' means for me. Functional testing
>>> in oslo.messaging means that we've been using real service for messaging
>>> (in this case - deployed 0mq). So, the simple definition, in term os
>>> OpenStack integration, we should be able to run full Tempest test suit for
>>> OpenStack services that are using oslo.messaging with enabled zmq driver.
>>> Am i right or not?
>> That’s a good goal, but that’s not what I had in mind for in-tree functional 
>> tests.
>> We should build a simple app using the Oslo libraries that we can place in 
>> the oslo.messaging source tree to use for exercising the communication 
>> patterns of the library with different drivers. Ideally that would be a 
>> single app (or set of apps) that could be used to test all drivers, with 
>> tests written against the app rather than the driver. Once we have the app 
>> and tests, we can define a new gate job to run those tests just for 
>> oslo.messaging, with a different configuration for each driver we support.
>> Doug
> An interesting idea that might be useful that taskflow implemented/has done...
> The examples @ 
> https://github.com/openstack/taskflow/tree/master/taskflow/examples all get 
> tested during unit test runs to ensure they work as expected. This seems 
> close to your 'simple app' (where app is replaced with example), it might be 
> nice to have a similar approach for oslo.messaging that has 'examples' that 
> are these apps that get ran to probe the functionality of oslo.messaging (as 
> well as useful for documentation to show people how to use it, which is the 
> other usage taskflow has for these examples)
> The hacky example tester could likely be shared (or refactored, since it 
> probably needs it), 
> https://github.com/openstack/taskflow/blob/master/taskflow/tests/test_examples.py#L91

Sure, that would be a good way to do it, too.


>>>>> My proposal for this topic is to change contribution focus from
>>>>> oslo.messaging by itself to OpenStack/Infra project and DevStack
>>>>> (subsequently to devstack-gate too).
>>>>> I guess there would be questions “why?”.  I think the answer is
>>>>> pretty obvious: we have driver that is not being tested at all
>>>>> within DevStack and project integration.
>>>> This was discussed in the oslo.messaging summit session, and
>>>> re-enabling zeromq support in devstack is definately on my todo list,
>>>> but I don't think the should block landing of the currently proposed
>>>> unit tests on oslo.messaging.
>>>> For example https://review.openstack.org/#/c/128233/ says about adding
>>> functional and units. I'm ok with units, but what about functional tests?
>>> Which oslo.messaging gate job runs them?
>>>>> Also i’d say that such focus re-orientation would be very useful
>>>>> as source of use cases and bugs eventually. Here’s a list of what
>>>>> we, as team, should do first:
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> Ensure that DevStack can successfully:
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> Install ZeroMQ.
>>>>> 2.
>>>>> Configure  each project to work with zmq driver from
>>>>> oslo.messaging.
>>>>> 2.
>>>>> Ensure that we can run successfully simple test plan for each
>>>>> project (like boot VM, fill object store container, spin up volume,
>>>>> etc.).
>>>> A better objective would be able to run a full tempest test as
>>>> conducted with the RabbitMQ driver IMHO.
>>> I do agree with this too. But we should define step-by-step plan for this
>>> type of testing. Since we want to see quick gate feedback adding full test
>>> suit would be an overhead, at least for now.
>>>>> ZeroMQ driver maintainers communityorganization. During design
>>>>> session was raised question about who uses zmq driver in
>>>>> production.
>>>>> I’ve seen folks from Canonical and few other companies. So, here’s
>>>>> my proposals around improving process of maintaining of given
>>>>> driver:
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> With respect to best practices of driver maintaining procedure, we
>>>>> might need to set up community sub-group. What would it give to us
>>>>> and to the project subsequently? It’s not pretty obvious, at least
>>>>> for now, but i’d try to light out couple moments:
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> continuous driver stability
>>>>> 2.
>>>>> continuous community support (across all OpenStack Project that are
>>>>> using same model: driver should have maintaining team, would it be
>>>>> a company or community sub-group)
>>>>> 2.
>>>>> As sub-group we would need to have our own weekly meeting. Separate
>>>>> meeting would keep us, as sub-group, pretty focused on zmq driver
>>>>> only (but it doesn’t mean that we should not participate in regular
>>>>> meetings). Same question. What it would give us and to the project?
>>>>> I’d say that the only one valid answer is: we’d not disturb other
>>>>> folk that are not actually interested in given topic and in zqm
>>>>> drive too.
>>>> I'd prefer that we continue to discuss ZMQ on the broader
>>>> oslo.messaging context; I'm keen that the OpenStack community
>>>> understands that we want ZMQ to be a first tier driver like qpid and
>>>> rmq, and I'm not convinced that pushing discussion out to a separate
>>>> sub-group enforces that message...
>>> The only thing that i'm woried about is that we could eventually eat all
>>> meeting time. That's why i try to build out drive maintaining/contribution
>>> team for zmq drive since there were not so may hands when was raised
>>> question about who uses zqm driver.
>>>>> So, in the end, taking into account words above i’d like to get
>>>>> feedback from all folks. I’m pretty open for discussion, and if
>>>>> needed i can commit myself for driving such activities in
>>>>> oslo.messaging.
>>>> - --
>>>> James Page
>>>> Ubuntu and Debian Developer
>>>> james.p...@ubuntu.com
>>>> jamesp...@debian.org
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> Version: GnuPG v1
>>>> fsj5yovho45T9LtSrLXD1Y+CT3pQqGDnglB+J8kUBkX56zJLWzSH1szWfRo5Y4Ms
>>>> kI0c3K8LxJ6PT4+j/A5JzNt37IhAwBTJ25QcRdzAUgV06IZ3F9ctz9F9lW1GDx/q
>>>> u5XvctYacKWhXH/Z/5Y2g3VE2aJSZNlgLA3PxLZeUEQaREj7XeC5x77FZbBYHVI6
>>>> E8E8B2H5nf+wln80zIm5rax3vzGh0rZVT/fgUgVcQan33XaFl64zrimjhEUXHUVF
>>>> QHIVJ4PNVklqMAEliAq0JMe6ewo1rgbS6DOcB8yOD3RWNo+d/MwSbYiwM/iXI9ya
>>>> DpqXK0HVfSbXgoAAqNl2eP5TfvZCtlRk1h3hqhc+843c7i+i2psMZ2mVN6LeJKdt
>>>> 7EvwY8xQErjKSbsmEjtV069ajjipP3hnmhyUwwJiFM2q8eKMIWRn+WDol88+f4Ke
>>>> NmguGjNzKkqqvWSS/IJVT+qHYEsm3GalLT1ZTDaagHpreIJ7vcXxSZTcoGLO6Nhs
>>>> 445cPZcek6jS+lhf81S13+hmfA1ZgQW2f4Yz5hv15xn90K/OaWE2/Z9AFfsOGWOA
>>>> 0FoyNY5FSGsNCG/km1BlfVSMWzB4wWpWzunMPFmwme/FoqAjvD4kt6kFKLu9DI1g
>>>> /L5WRZfi7Cu7eCC/X6c7
>>>> =NBH2
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> Best regards,
>>> Denis M.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> -- 
> Sent with Postbox <http://www.getpostbox.com>
> _______________________________________________
> 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