Please see below:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Matt Riedemann
<> wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 7:47 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>> Greetings OpenStack,
>> == Background
>> Since the beginning of OpenStack (or almost), devstack has been used
>> as a common tool to deploy OpenStack in CI environment. Most of
>> OpenStack projects (if not all) that are written in Python use it to
>> deploy the different components.
>> While devstack became popular and the reference in term of deployment
>> tool for continuous integration, devstack doesn't deploy OpenStack in
>> production (versus some tools like Kolla, Fuel, TripleO, Juju, etc).
>> It means things might (and did) break when deploying OpenStack outside
>> devstack, for different reasons. Some examples:
>> * until recently, SSL was not tested, and I believe some projects
>> still don't test with SSL enabled.
>> * IPv6 is not tested everywhere.
>> * Production scenarios, with HA (HAproxy or/and Pacemaker) are not tested.
>> My point here, is that devstack has been doing very good job for its
>> simplicity (written in bash) and its large adoption by projects to
>> make CI, though we might consider adding more coverage to make sure it
>> works outside devstack.
>> As an example, Puppet OpenStack modules CI is using a devstack-like
>> job (with 3 scenarios), called puppet-openstack-integration [1] but we
>> also run TripleO and Fuel CI jobs, to increase coverage and give a
>> better feedback on testing.
>> == Proposal
>> This is not about removing devstack! The idea is to add more coverage
>> in an iterative way, with some other tools.
>> We started some months ago by running TripleO CI jobs in Ironic and
>> Heat gates (experimental pipeline) because TripleO is high consumer of
>> Ironic and Heat.
>> Also, we recently added our TripleO multinode job in Nova experimental
>> pipeline (doc here [2]).
>> Now, we are moving forward with python-openstackclient and osc-lib.
>> I started to draft a document about how we could increase coverage in
>> different projects:
>> (feel free to add your project and give your opinion directly in the
>> spreadsheet).
>> The intention here is to discuss with teams interested by such CI
>> coverage. We don't want to slow down or break your gate (example with
>> TripleO, our jobs are non-voting outside TripleO and take ~45 min);
>> but reduce the feedback loop between developers and deployment tools
>> used in production.
>> We don't expect developers to investigate why new CI jobs would fail
>> (ex: a Nova developer to look at TripleO CI job), it would be unfair.
>> Just some horizontal communication would be enough, IRC or email, to
>> inform that a patch might break a CI job outside devstack.
>> I also want to mention that the proposal is not only about TripleO. I
>> used this tool in my examples because I'm working on it but obviously
>> this proposal should be open to Big Tent projects that also deploy
>> OpenStack.
>> Please give any feedback, and let's make OpenStack testing stronger!
>> Thanks for reading so far,
>> [1]
>> [2]
> I don't really have a problem with wanting to run non-devstack deployment
> tool jobs against project changes on-demand (experimental queue job). That's
> why I approved the change to add that TripleO job to nova's experimental
> queue.
> The experimental queue is only on-demand though, so reviewers have to be
> conscious of running it and even then people don't think to check the
> results, or a failure might not be obvious as to what caused it (my patch,
> or is this job always broken and is thus in the experimental queue, like the
> nova-lxc job?).
> For better or worse devstack is at least universally used and it's THE
> default thing we point newcomers to when getting started if they want to
> quickly and easily get a development environment with a running openstack on
> a single-node up and running to kick the tires. I can't say the same for the
> plethora of other deployment projects out there like kolla, ansible, salt,
> puppet, chef, tripleo/packstack/rdo, fuel, etc, etc. I think that's what's
> really caused the lack of universal adoption of anything besides devstack in
> our CI environment. And love it or hate it, I think anyone that's been
> around for awhile and tries to debug gate failures is at least used to
> hacking on devstack and knows how it works to a certain extent.
> Anyway, as I said, I've got no problem with getting some additional optional
> non-voting coverage in other projects besides devstack to at least try and
> prevent breaking changes. I worry about trying to move various deployment
> jobs into the check queue for multiple projects though, as I think that
> would put a pretty serious strain on resources for non-voting jobs, which
> we'd like to avoid I think.
> My two cents.

Matt, Emilien,

there's one more option, run jobs daily and add the output to the
openstack health dashboard.
example -

> --
> Thanks,
> Matt Riedemann
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe:

Davanum Srinivas ::

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Reply via email to