On 10/12/2016 05:01 AM, Dmitry Tantsur 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.

Huge +1 on this from me, as well.

I am also in favor of some of the other suggestions on this thread, namely,
moving API testing over to functional tests so that those can be run more
quickly / with less resources / without affecting tempest scenario tests.

I also think we should begin defining additional scenario tests to cover things
we are not covering today  (eg, adopt a running instance), as Vasyl already
pointed out. But I don't think that conflicts or prevents the changes you're
suggesting, Dmitry.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to