Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS

2015-01-29 Thread Vladimir Kuklin 
Guys I just suggested to use serverspec as beaker is a kind of overkill
duplicating our fuel-devops framework, so that we do not need to mess with
beaker ways of environment creation.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Tomasz Napierala 
wrote:

> I hope, we don’t even consider using python for that. Let’s be as close as
> possible to community and use rspec for manifests.
>
> Regards,
>
> > On 29 Jan 2015, at 09:50, Vladimir Kuklin  wrote:
> >
> > Guys, could you point out where I suggested to use python for testing
> puppet manifests?
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk <
> sgolovat...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> > We need to write tests in way how Puppet community writes. Though if
> user uses salt in one stage, it's fine to use tests on python.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Sergii Golovatiuk,
> > Skype #golserge
> > IRC #holser
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak 
> wrote:
> > Guys, is it crazy idea to write tests for deployment state on node in
> python?
> > It even can be done in unit tests fashion..
> >
> > I mean there is no strict dependency on tool from puppet world, what is
> needed is access to os and shell, maybe some utils.
> >
> > >> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy
> steps aka tasks?
> > From nailgun/orchestration point of view - verification of deployment
> should be done as another task, or included in original.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
> wrote:
> > Moreover I would suggest to use server spec as beaker is already
> duplicating part of our infrastructure automatization.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
> wrote:
> > Guys, I suggest that we create a blueprint how to integrate beaker with
> our existing infrastructure to increase test coverage. My optimistic
> estimate is that we can see its implementation in 7.0.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Andrew Woodward 
> wrote:
> > My understanding is serverspec is not going to work well / going to be
> > supported. I think it was discusssed on IRC (as i cant find it in my
> > email). Stackforge/puppet-ceph moved from ?(something)spec to beaker,
> > as its more functional and actively developed.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk
> >  wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Puppet OpenStack community uses Beaker for acceptance testing. I would
> > > consider it as option [2]
> > >
> > > [2] https://github.com/puppetlabs/beaker
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Sergii Golovatiuk,
> > > Skype #golserge
> > > IRC #holser
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <
> bdobre...@mirantis.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hello.
> > >>
> > >> We are working on the modularization of Openstack deployment by puppet
> > >> manifests in Fuel library [0].
> > >>
> > >> Each deploy step should be post-verified with some testing framework
> as
> > >> well.
> > >>
> > >> I believe the framework should:
> > >> * be shipped as a part of Fuel library for puppet manifests instead of
> > >> orchestration or Nailgun backend logic;
> > >> * allow the deployer to verify results right in-place, at the node
> being
> > >> deployed, for example, with a rake tool;
> > >> * be compatible / easy to integrate with the existing orchestration in
> > >> Fuel and Mistral as an option?
> > >>
> > >> It looks like test resources provided by Serverspec [1] are a good
> > >> option, what do you think?
> > >>
> > >> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy
> > >> steps aka tasks? The spec for blueprint gives no a clear answer.
> > >>
> > >> [0]
> > >>
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-library-modularization
> > >> [1] http://serverspec.org/resource_types.html
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Bogdan Dobrelya,
> > >> Skype #bogdando_at_yahoo.com
> > >> Irc #bogdando
> > >>
> > >>
> __
> > >> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> __
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew
> > Mirantis
> > Ceph community
> >
> >
> __
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Yours Faithfully,
> > Vladimir Kuklin,
> > Fuel Library Tech Lead,
> > Mirantis, In

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS

2015-01-29 Thread Tomasz Napierala 
I hope, we don’t even consider using python for that. Let’s be as close as 
possible to community and use rspec for manifests.

Regards,

> On 29 Jan 2015, at 09:50, Vladimir Kuklin  wrote:
> 
> Guys, could you point out where I suggested to use python for testing puppet 
> manifests?
> 
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk  
> wrote:
> We need to write tests in way how Puppet community writes. Though if user 
> uses salt in one stage, it's fine to use tests on python.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Sergii Golovatiuk,
> Skype #golserge
> IRC #holser
> 
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak  
> wrote:
> Guys, is it crazy idea to write tests for deployment state on node in python?
> It even can be done in unit tests fashion..
> 
> I mean there is no strict dependency on tool from puppet world, what is 
> needed is access to os and shell, maybe some utils.
> 
> >> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy steps 
> >> aka tasks?
> From nailgun/orchestration point of view - verification of deployment should 
> be done as another task, or included in original.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Vladimir Kuklin  wrote:
> Moreover I would suggest to use server spec as beaker is already duplicating 
> part of our infrastructure automatization.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Vladimir Kuklin  wrote:
> Guys, I suggest that we create a blueprint how to integrate beaker with our 
> existing infrastructure to increase test coverage. My optimistic estimate is 
> that we can see its implementation in 7.0.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Andrew Woodward  wrote:
> My understanding is serverspec is not going to work well / going to be
> supported. I think it was discusssed on IRC (as i cant find it in my
> email). Stackforge/puppet-ceph moved from ?(something)spec to beaker,
> as its more functional and actively developed.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk
>  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Puppet OpenStack community uses Beaker for acceptance testing. I would
> > consider it as option [2]
> >
> > [2] https://github.com/puppetlabs/beaker
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Sergii Golovatiuk,
> > Skype #golserge
> > IRC #holser
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> We are working on the modularization of Openstack deployment by puppet
> >> manifests in Fuel library [0].
> >>
> >> Each deploy step should be post-verified with some testing framework as
> >> well.
> >>
> >> I believe the framework should:
> >> * be shipped as a part of Fuel library for puppet manifests instead of
> >> orchestration or Nailgun backend logic;
> >> * allow the deployer to verify results right in-place, at the node being
> >> deployed, for example, with a rake tool;
> >> * be compatible / easy to integrate with the existing orchestration in
> >> Fuel and Mistral as an option?
> >>
> >> It looks like test resources provided by Serverspec [1] are a good
> >> option, what do you think?
> >>
> >> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy
> >> steps aka tasks? The spec for blueprint gives no a clear answer.
> >>
> >> [0]
> >> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-library-modularization
> >> [1] http://serverspec.org/resource_types.html
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> Bogdan Dobrelya,
> >> Skype #bogdando_at_yahoo.com
> >> Irc #bogdando
> >>
> >> __
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > __
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Andrew
> Mirantis
> Ceph community
> 
> __
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Yours Faithfully,
> Vladimir Kuklin,
> Fuel Library Tech Lead,
> Mirantis, Inc.
> +7 (495) 640-49-04
> +7 (926) 702-39-68
> Skype kuklinvv
> 45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
> Moscow, Russia,
> www.mirantis.com
> www.mirantis.ru
> vkuk...@mirantis.com
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Yours Faithfully,
> Vladimir Kuklin,
> Fuel Library Tech Lead,
> Mirantis, Inc.
> +7 (495) 640-49-04
> +7 (926) 702-39-68
> Skype kuklinvv
> 45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
> Moscow, Russia,
> www.mirantis.com
> www.mirantis.ru
> vkuk...@mirantis.com
> 
> __
> OpenStack Developm

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS

2015-01-29 Thread Vladimir Kuklin 
Guys, could you point out where I suggested to use python for testing
puppet manifests?

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk  wrote:

> We need to write tests in way how Puppet community writes. Though if user
> uses salt in one stage, it's fine to use tests on python.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Sergii Golovatiuk,
> Skype #golserge
> IRC #holser
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak 
> wrote:
>
>> Guys, is it crazy idea to write tests for deployment state on node in
>> python?
>> It even can be done in unit tests fashion..
>>
>> I mean there is no strict dependency on tool from puppet world, what is
>> needed is access to os and shell, maybe some utils.
>>
>> >> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy steps
>> aka tasks?
>> From nailgun/orchestration point of view - verification of deployment
>> should be done as another task, or included in original.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Moreover I would suggest to use server spec as beaker is already
>>> duplicating part of our infrastructure automatization.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Guys, I suggest that we create a blueprint how to integrate beaker with
 our existing infrastructure to increase test coverage. My optimistic
 estimate is that we can see its implementation in 7.0.

 On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Andrew Woodward 
 wrote:

> My understanding is serverspec is not going to work well / going to be
> supported. I think it was discusssed on IRC (as i cant find it in my
> email). Stackforge/puppet-ceph moved from ?(something)spec to beaker,
> as its more functional and actively developed.
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk
>  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Puppet OpenStack community uses Beaker for acceptance testing. I
> would
> > consider it as option [2]
> >
> > [2] https://github.com/puppetlabs/beaker
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Sergii Golovatiuk,
> > Skype #golserge
> > IRC #holser
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <
> bdobre...@mirantis.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> We are working on the modularization of Openstack deployment by
> puppet
> >> manifests in Fuel library [0].
> >>
> >> Each deploy step should be post-verified with some testing
> framework as
> >> well.
> >>
> >> I believe the framework should:
> >> * be shipped as a part of Fuel library for puppet manifests instead
> of
> >> orchestration or Nailgun backend logic;
> >> * allow the deployer to verify results right in-place, at the node
> being
> >> deployed, for example, with a rake tool;
> >> * be compatible / easy to integrate with the existing orchestration
> in
> >> Fuel and Mistral as an option?
> >>
> >> It looks like test resources provided by Serverspec [1] are a good
> >> option, what do you think?
> >>
> >> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy
> >> steps aka tasks? The spec for blueprint gives no a clear answer.
> >>
> >> [0]
> >>
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-library-modularization
> >> [1] http://serverspec.org/resource_types.html
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> Bogdan Dobrelya,
> >> Skype #bogdando_at_yahoo.com
> >> Irc #bogdando
> >>
> >>
> __
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew
> Mirantis
> Ceph community
>
>
> __
> 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
>



 --
 Yours Faithfully,
 Vladimir Kuklin,
 Fuel Library Tech Lead,
 Mirantis, Inc.
 +7 (495) 640-49-04
 +7 (926) 702-39-68
 Skype kuklinvv
 45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
 Moscow, Russia,
 www.mirantis.com 
 www.mirantis.ru
 vkuk...@mirantis.com

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS

2015-01-28 Thread Sergii Golovatiuk 
We need to write tests in way how Puppet community writes. Though if user
uses salt in one stage, it's fine to use tests on python.

--
Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak 
wrote:

> Guys, is it crazy idea to write tests for deployment state on node in
> python?
> It even can be done in unit tests fashion..
>
> I mean there is no strict dependency on tool from puppet world, what is
> needed is access to os and shell, maybe some utils.
>
> >> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy steps
> aka tasks?
> From nailgun/orchestration point of view - verification of deployment
> should be done as another task, or included in original.
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
> wrote:
>
>> Moreover I would suggest to use server spec as beaker is already
>> duplicating part of our infrastructure automatization.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Guys, I suggest that we create a blueprint how to integrate beaker with
>>> our existing infrastructure to increase test coverage. My optimistic
>>> estimate is that we can see its implementation in 7.0.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Andrew Woodward 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 My understanding is serverspec is not going to work well / going to be
 supported. I think it was discusssed on IRC (as i cant find it in my
 email). Stackforge/puppet-ceph moved from ?(something)spec to beaker,
 as its more functional and actively developed.

 On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk
  wrote:
 > Hi,
 >
 > Puppet OpenStack community uses Beaker for acceptance testing. I would
 > consider it as option [2]
 >
 > [2] https://github.com/puppetlabs/beaker
 >
 > --
 > Best regards,
 > Sergii Golovatiuk,
 > Skype #golserge
 > IRC #holser
 >
 > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <
 bdobre...@mirantis.com>
 > wrote:
 >>
 >> Hello.
 >>
 >> We are working on the modularization of Openstack deployment by
 puppet
 >> manifests in Fuel library [0].
 >>
 >> Each deploy step should be post-verified with some testing framework
 as
 >> well.
 >>
 >> I believe the framework should:
 >> * be shipped as a part of Fuel library for puppet manifests instead
 of
 >> orchestration or Nailgun backend logic;
 >> * allow the deployer to verify results right in-place, at the node
 being
 >> deployed, for example, with a rake tool;
 >> * be compatible / easy to integrate with the existing orchestration
 in
 >> Fuel and Mistral as an option?
 >>
 >> It looks like test resources provided by Serverspec [1] are a good
 >> option, what do you think?
 >>
 >> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy
 >> steps aka tasks? The spec for blueprint gives no a clear answer.
 >>
 >> [0]
 >>
 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-library-modularization
 >> [1] http://serverspec.org/resource_types.html
 >>
 >> --
 >> Best regards,
 >> Bogdan Dobrelya,
 >> Skype #bogdando_at_yahoo.com
 >> Irc #bogdando
 >>
 >>
 __
 >> 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
 >
 >
 >
 >
 __
 > 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
 >



 --
 Andrew
 Mirantis
 Ceph community


 __
 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

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Yours Faithfully,
>>> Vladimir Kuklin,
>>> Fuel Library Tech Lead,
>>> Mirantis, Inc.
>>> +7 (495) 640-49-04
>>> +7 (926) 702-39-68
>>> Skype kuklinvv
>>> 45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
>>> Moscow, Russia,
>>> www.mirantis.com 
>>> www.mirantis.ru
>>> vkuk...@mirantis.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Yours Faithfully,
>> Vladimir Kuklin,
>> Fuel Library Tech Lead,
>> Mirantis, Inc.
>> +7 (495) 640-49-04
>> +7 (926) 702-39-68
>> Skype kuklinvv
>> 45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
>> Moscow, Russia,
>> www.mirantis.com 
>> www.mirantis.ru
>> vkuk...@mirantis.com
>>
>> ___

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS

2015-01-28 Thread Dmitriy Shulyak 
Guys, is it crazy idea to write tests for deployment state on node in
python?
It even can be done in unit tests fashion..

I mean there is no strict dependency on tool from puppet world, what is
needed is access to os and shell, maybe some utils.

>> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy steps
aka tasks?
>From nailgun/orchestration point of view - verification of deployment
should be done as another task, or included in original.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
wrote:

> Moreover I would suggest to use server spec as beaker is already
> duplicating part of our infrastructure automatization.
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
> wrote:
>
>> Guys, I suggest that we create a blueprint how to integrate beaker with
>> our existing infrastructure to increase test coverage. My optimistic
>> estimate is that we can see its implementation in 7.0.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Andrew Woodward 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My understanding is serverspec is not going to work well / going to be
>>> supported. I think it was discusssed on IRC (as i cant find it in my
>>> email). Stackforge/puppet-ceph moved from ?(something)spec to beaker,
>>> as its more functional and actively developed.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk
>>>  wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Puppet OpenStack community uses Beaker for acceptance testing. I would
>>> > consider it as option [2]
>>> >
>>> > [2] https://github.com/puppetlabs/beaker
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Best regards,
>>> > Sergii Golovatiuk,
>>> > Skype #golserge
>>> > IRC #holser
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <
>>> bdobre...@mirantis.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hello.
>>> >>
>>> >> We are working on the modularization of Openstack deployment by puppet
>>> >> manifests in Fuel library [0].
>>> >>
>>> >> Each deploy step should be post-verified with some testing framework
>>> as
>>> >> well.
>>> >>
>>> >> I believe the framework should:
>>> >> * be shipped as a part of Fuel library for puppet manifests instead of
>>> >> orchestration or Nailgun backend logic;
>>> >> * allow the deployer to verify results right in-place, at the node
>>> being
>>> >> deployed, for example, with a rake tool;
>>> >> * be compatible / easy to integrate with the existing orchestration in
>>> >> Fuel and Mistral as an option?
>>> >>
>>> >> It looks like test resources provided by Serverspec [1] are a good
>>> >> option, what do you think?
>>> >>
>>> >> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy
>>> >> steps aka tasks? The spec for blueprint gives no a clear answer.
>>> >>
>>> >> [0]
>>> >>
>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-library-modularization
>>> >> [1] http://serverspec.org/resource_types.html
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Best regards,
>>> >> Bogdan Dobrelya,
>>> >> Skype #bogdando_at_yahoo.com
>>> >> Irc #bogdando
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> __
>>> >> 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> __
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew
>>> Mirantis
>>> Ceph community
>>>
>>>
>>> __
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Yours Faithfully,
>> Vladimir Kuklin,
>> Fuel Library Tech Lead,
>> Mirantis, Inc.
>> +7 (495) 640-49-04
>> +7 (926) 702-39-68
>> Skype kuklinvv
>> 45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
>> Moscow, Russia,
>> www.mirantis.com 
>> www.mirantis.ru
>> vkuk...@mirantis.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Yours Faithfully,
> Vladimir Kuklin,
> Fuel Library Tech Lead,
> Mirantis, Inc.
> +7 (495) 640-49-04
> +7 (926) 702-39-68
> Skype kuklinvv
> 45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
> Moscow, Russia,
> www.mirantis.com 
> www.mirantis.ru
> vkuk...@mirantis.com
>
> __
> 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
>
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@list

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS

2015-01-22 Thread Vladimir Kuklin 
Guys, I suggest that we create a blueprint how to integrate beaker with our
existing infrastructure to increase test coverage. My optimistic estimate
is that we can see its implementation in 7.0.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Andrew Woodward  wrote:

> My understanding is serverspec is not going to work well / going to be
> supported. I think it was discusssed on IRC (as i cant find it in my
> email). Stackforge/puppet-ceph moved from ?(something)spec to beaker,
> as its more functional and actively developed.
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk
>  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Puppet OpenStack community uses Beaker for acceptance testing. I would
> > consider it as option [2]
> >
> > [2] https://github.com/puppetlabs/beaker
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Sergii Golovatiuk,
> > Skype #golserge
> > IRC #holser
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya  >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> We are working on the modularization of Openstack deployment by puppet
> >> manifests in Fuel library [0].
> >>
> >> Each deploy step should be post-verified with some testing framework as
> >> well.
> >>
> >> I believe the framework should:
> >> * be shipped as a part of Fuel library for puppet manifests instead of
> >> orchestration or Nailgun backend logic;
> >> * allow the deployer to verify results right in-place, at the node being
> >> deployed, for example, with a rake tool;
> >> * be compatible / easy to integrate with the existing orchestration in
> >> Fuel and Mistral as an option?
> >>
> >> It looks like test resources provided by Serverspec [1] are a good
> >> option, what do you think?
> >>
> >> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy
> >> steps aka tasks? The spec for blueprint gives no a clear answer.
> >>
> >> [0]
> >> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-library-modularization
> >> [1] http://serverspec.org/resource_types.html
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> Bogdan Dobrelya,
> >> Skype #bogdando_at_yahoo.com
> >> Irc #bogdando
> >>
> >>
> __
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew
> Mirantis
> Ceph community
>
> __
> 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
>



-- 
Yours Faithfully,
Vladimir Kuklin,
Fuel Library Tech Lead,
Mirantis, Inc.
+7 (495) 640-49-04
+7 (926) 702-39-68
Skype kuklinvv
45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
Moscow, Russia,
www.mirantis.com 
www.mirantis.ru
vkuk...@mirantis.com
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS

2015-01-22 Thread Vladimir Kuklin 
Moreover I would suggest to use server spec as beaker is already
duplicating part of our infrastructure automatization.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Vladimir Kuklin 
wrote:

> Guys, I suggest that we create a blueprint how to integrate beaker with
> our existing infrastructure to increase test coverage. My optimistic
> estimate is that we can see its implementation in 7.0.
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Andrew Woodward  wrote:
>
>> My understanding is serverspec is not going to work well / going to be
>> supported. I think it was discusssed on IRC (as i cant find it in my
>> email). Stackforge/puppet-ceph moved from ?(something)spec to beaker,
>> as its more functional and actively developed.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk
>>  wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Puppet OpenStack community uses Beaker for acceptance testing. I would
>> > consider it as option [2]
>> >
>> > [2] https://github.com/puppetlabs/beaker
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> > Sergii Golovatiuk,
>> > Skype #golserge
>> > IRC #holser
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <
>> bdobre...@mirantis.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello.
>> >>
>> >> We are working on the modularization of Openstack deployment by puppet
>> >> manifests in Fuel library [0].
>> >>
>> >> Each deploy step should be post-verified with some testing framework as
>> >> well.
>> >>
>> >> I believe the framework should:
>> >> * be shipped as a part of Fuel library for puppet manifests instead of
>> >> orchestration or Nailgun backend logic;
>> >> * allow the deployer to verify results right in-place, at the node
>> being
>> >> deployed, for example, with a rake tool;
>> >> * be compatible / easy to integrate with the existing orchestration in
>> >> Fuel and Mistral as an option?
>> >>
>> >> It looks like test resources provided by Serverspec [1] are a good
>> >> option, what do you think?
>> >>
>> >> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy
>> >> steps aka tasks? The spec for blueprint gives no a clear answer.
>> >>
>> >> [0]
>> >>
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-library-modularization
>> >> [1] http://serverspec.org/resource_types.html
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Bogdan Dobrelya,
>> >> Skype #bogdando_at_yahoo.com
>> >> Irc #bogdando
>> >>
>> >>
>> __
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> __
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>> Mirantis
>> Ceph community
>>
>> __
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Yours Faithfully,
> Vladimir Kuklin,
> Fuel Library Tech Lead,
> Mirantis, Inc.
> +7 (495) 640-49-04
> +7 (926) 702-39-68
> Skype kuklinvv
> 45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
> Moscow, Russia,
> www.mirantis.com 
> www.mirantis.ru
> vkuk...@mirantis.com
>



-- 
Yours Faithfully,
Vladimir Kuklin,
Fuel Library Tech Lead,
Mirantis, Inc.
+7 (495) 640-49-04
+7 (926) 702-39-68
Skype kuklinvv
45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
Moscow, Russia,
www.mirantis.com 
www.mirantis.ru
vkuk...@mirantis.com
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS

2015-01-21 Thread Andrew Woodward 
My understanding is serverspec is not going to work well / going to be
supported. I think it was discusssed on IRC (as i cant find it in my
email). Stackforge/puppet-ceph moved from ?(something)spec to beaker,
as its more functional and actively developed.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Puppet OpenStack community uses Beaker for acceptance testing. I would
> consider it as option [2]
>
> [2] https://github.com/puppetlabs/beaker
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Sergii Golovatiuk,
> Skype #golserge
> IRC #holser
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> We are working on the modularization of Openstack deployment by puppet
>> manifests in Fuel library [0].
>>
>> Each deploy step should be post-verified with some testing framework as
>> well.
>>
>> I believe the framework should:
>> * be shipped as a part of Fuel library for puppet manifests instead of
>> orchestration or Nailgun backend logic;
>> * allow the deployer to verify results right in-place, at the node being
>> deployed, for example, with a rake tool;
>> * be compatible / easy to integrate with the existing orchestration in
>> Fuel and Mistral as an option?
>>
>> It looks like test resources provided by Serverspec [1] are a good
>> option, what do you think?
>>
>> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy
>> steps aka tasks? The spec for blueprint gives no a clear answer.
>>
>> [0]
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-library-modularization
>> [1] http://serverspec.org/resource_types.html
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Bogdan Dobrelya,
>> Skype #bogdando_at_yahoo.com
>> Irc #bogdando
>>
>> __
>> 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
>
>
>
> __
> 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
>



-- 
Andrew
Mirantis
Ceph community

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS

2015-01-12 Thread Sergii Golovatiuk 
Hi,

Puppet OpenStack community uses Beaker for acceptance testing. I would
consider it as option [2]

[2] https://github.com/puppetlabs/beaker

--
Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya 
wrote:

> Hello.
>
> We are working on the modularization of Openstack deployment by puppet
> manifests in Fuel library [0].
>
> Each deploy step should be post-verified with some testing framework as
> well.
>
> I believe the framework should:
> * be shipped as a part of Fuel library for puppet manifests instead of
> orchestration or Nailgun backend logic;
> * allow the deployer to verify results right in-place, at the node being
> deployed, for example, with a rake tool;
> * be compatible / easy to integrate with the existing orchestration in
> Fuel and Mistral as an option?
>
> It looks like test resources provided by Serverspec [1] are a good
> option, what do you think?
>
> What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy
> steps aka tasks? The spec for blueprint gives no a clear answer.
>
> [0]
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-library-modularization
> [1] http://serverspec.org/resource_types.html
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Bogdan Dobrelya,
> Skype #bogdando_at_yahoo.com
> Irc #bogdando
>
> __
> 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
>
__
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

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS

2015-01-12 Thread Bogdan Dobrelya 
Hello.

We are working on the modularization of Openstack deployment by puppet
manifests in Fuel library [0].

Each deploy step should be post-verified with some testing framework as
well.

I believe the framework should:
* be shipped as a part of Fuel library for puppet manifests instead of
orchestration or Nailgun backend logic;
* allow the deployer to verify results right in-place, at the node being
deployed, for example, with a rake tool;
* be compatible / easy to integrate with the existing orchestration in
Fuel and Mistral as an option?

It looks like test resources provided by Serverspec [1] are a good
option, what do you think?

What plans have Fuel Nailgun team for testing the results of deploy
steps aka tasks? The spec for blueprint gives no a clear answer.

[0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/fuel-library-modularization
[1] http://serverspec.org/resource_types.html

-- 
Best regards,
Bogdan Dobrelya,
Skype #bogdando_at_yahoo.com
Irc #bogdando

__
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