On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Devananda van der Veen <
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> 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
> suggesting, Dmitry.
Thanks for bringing this up Dmitry! Might I suggest, if we don't already
have it, that this would be a good time to track (in a spreadsheet-like
form), the jobs with the tests covered by each job (or desired but not
covered yet). I can never remember what we are testing vs not testing.
(e.g. I thought we had adoption of a running instance.)
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)