On 10/12/2016 05:53 PM, Jay Faulkner wrote:


On Oct 12, 2016, at 5:01 AM, Dmitry Tantsur <dtant...@redhat.com> wrote:

Hi folks!

I'd like to propose a plan on how to simultaneously extend the coverage of our 
jobs and reduce their number.

Currently, we're running one instance per job. This was reasonable when the 
coreos-based IPA image was the default, but now with tinyipa we can run up to 7 
instances (and actually do it in the grenade job). I suggest we use 6 fake bm 
nodes to make a single CI job cover many scenarios.

The jobs will be grouped based on driver (pxe_ipmitool and agent_ipmitool) to 
be more in sync with how 3rd party CI does it. A special configuration option 
will be used to enable multi-instance testing to avoid breaking 3rd party CI 
systems that are not ready for it.

To ensure coverage, we'll only leave a required number of nodes "available", 
and deploy all instances in parallel.

In the end, we'll have these jobs on ironic:
gate-tempest-ironic-pxe_ipmitool-tinyipa
gate-tempest-ironic-agent_ipmitool-tinyipa

Each job will cover the following scenarious:
* partition images:
** with local boot:
** 1. msdos partition table and BIOS boot
** 2. GPT partition table and BIOS boot
** 3. GPT partition table and UEFI boot  <*>
** with netboot:
** 4. msdos partition table and BIOS boot <**>
* whole disk images:
* 5. with msdos partition table embedded and BIOS boot
* 6. with GPT partition table embedded and UEFI boot  <*>

<*> - in the future, when we figure our UEFI testing
<**> - we're moving away from defaulting to netboot, hence only one scenario

I suggest creating the jobs for Newton and Ocata, and starting with Xenial 
right away.

Any comments, ideas and suggestions are welcome.


+1 I'm completely on-board with this.

Have you considered mixing in multiple drivers in a single test? Given we can 
set drivers per node, is there's a reason (other than maybe just size/duration 
of job) that we couldn't test both pxe_* and agent_* deploy methodologies at 
the same time?

There is no reason, except for maybe making life easier for 3rd party CI folks. If we don't mess with drivers, they might have easier time doing the same in their jobs.


Thanks,
Jay

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to