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. -Deva __________________________________________________________________________ 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