Hello Louie, You were absolutely right to verify your deployment via Functest Fraser. I suggest you to switch to master because this version can be already considered as better regarding deployment configurations which are unverified or partially verified by OPNFV gates such for instance: - few vlan ids are allowed by firewall rules (network providers) - flavor specs or image extra properties are mandatory (e.g DPDK)
Yes we have done a huge refactoring to enforce the two previous scenarios by design instead of a possible partial support (several testcases would have to be updated). Yes 6 new scenarios are now offered (tenantnetwork[1,2], vmready[1,2], singlevm[1,2] which bring other benefits as well: - ease writing testcases for endusers and OPNFV Features - avoid duplicating code as for vnfs - follow the same rules in all testcase config sections - allow easily cleaning all remaining resources There are several bugfixes including in the scenarios as the one you're highlighting (cf. SingleVm2). I fully agree with you that we should backport all the related patches. I precise that no testcase will be created or moved for one tiers to another. Then they may help Dovetail (based on Fraser) to correctly certify this setups. I will add this topic on the agenda of the next Functest meeting then we would take the actions agreed by Functest team. But our icmp packet raised lots of concerns last week, from few installers to TSC and we don't know clearly what are our new prerogatives. I would think we are free to decide but I prefer opening the question here as well. No need to break the virtuous circle between Test Frameworks and one additional installer which is, I think, the worse case for OPNFV. But I think there is no technical reason to do so here as well. Cédric On ven., 2018-06-29 at 15:19 +0800, louie long wrote: > > Hi，Cédric， > > The functest（opnfv/functest-healthcheck：latest）does work, and vping > testcase can test successfully. > > Why I chose functest(opnfv/functest-smoke:fraser) is due to the > dovetail use opnfv/functest-smoke:fraser, > and the vping testcase of dovetail has failed, so I chose functest > to test vping alone and try to find out why it was failed. > > I try to find out the patch on the master about the vping, but I > find that the vping is refactored and became concise. > It seems to involve multiple patches. Is it possible to merge the > patch on the master about the vping to the Fraser? > > Thank you. > > Louie > > > ------------------ Original ------------------ > From: "cedric.ollivier"<[email protected]>; > Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2018 11:38 PM > To: "louie long"<[email protected]>; "opnfv-tech-discuss"<opnfv-tech > [email protected]>; > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [functest] The vping test failed > > Hello, > > Would you mind trying the two vping testcases in master (they have > moved to opnfv/functest-healthcheck)? > We have switched to the floating ip address instead of the vm > attribute. > > Please let us know if it works, we would backport the required > changes. > > Thank you in advance, > Cédric > > > De : [email protected] [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@li > sts.opnfv.org] De la part de louie long > Envoyé : lundi 25 juin 2018 12:48 > À : opnfv-tech-discuss > Objet : [opnfv-tech-discuss] [functest] The vping test failed > > > Hi,functest, > > I have problem with functest(opnfv/functest-smoke:fraser) vping > testcase, the vping network and vm instance can be created normally > by functest, and I can login the vm run ping test, also it can ping > each other ok. > > But the functest vping show the testcase run failed, wether I use > ssh or userdata. In vping_ssh testcase, the vm get a floating ip > 192.168.20.140 and an intenal ip > 192.168.130.7, I can use ssh to login the vm by using the floating ip > and execute ping another vm ok. But the functest try to login vm by > using 192.168.130.7, it seems abnormally. > > The attachment is vping_ssh and vping_userdata test logs. Please > give me some help for this issue. > Thank you. > > Louie > > > > > ------------------ > Louie Long > E-mail: [email protected] > Mobile: +86 13261979365 > Fax: 86-10-5867-8466 > Postcode：101111 > Add: 2nd Floor, Building 5, No.58 Jinghai Road, BDA, Beijing, China > Website: www.biigroup.com www.cfiec.net > _____________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous > avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les > messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, > deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or > privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender > and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have > been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > 有道词典tch on the mast ...详细X > 业务信道上主对远期的副总裁 > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#21485): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21485 Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/22674506/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
