Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud

2018-06-28 Thread Derek Higgins 
On 23 February 2018 at 14:48, Derek Higgins  wrote:

>
>
> On 1 February 2018 at 16:18, Emilien Macchi  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Derek Higgins  wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the
> networking stuff is different?
>

 I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset,
 see existing files for examples.

>>> Do you mean that we should use existing tests somewhere or create new
>>> ones?
>>>
>>
>> I mean we should use existing tempest tests from ironic, etc. Maybe just
>> a baremetal scenario that spawn a baremetal server and test ssh into it,
>> like we already have with other jobs.
>>
> Done, the current set of patches sets up a new non voting job
> "tripleo-ci-centos-7-scenario011-multinode-oooq-container" which setup up
> ironic in the overcloud and run the ironic tempest job
> "ironic_tempest_plugin.tests.scenario.test_baremetal_basic_
> ops.BaremetalBasicOps.test_baremetal_server_ops"
>
> its currently passing so I'd appreciate a few eyes on it before it becomes
> out of date again
> there are 4 patches starting here https://review.openstack.
> org/#/c/509728/19
>

This is now working again so If anybody has the time I'd appreciate some
reviews while its still current
See scenario011 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/509728/




>
>
>>
>> o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best
> way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't
> think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it?
>

 What kind of thing do you want to run exactly?

>>> The contents to this file will give you an idea, somewhere I need to
>>> setup a node that ironic will control with ipmi
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/19/ci/common/vbmc_setup.yaml
>>>
>>
>> extraconfig works for me in that case, I guess. Since we don't productize
>> this code and it's for CI only, it can live here imho.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Emilien Macchi
>>
>> 
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib
>> e
>> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud

2018-02-23 Thread Emilien Macchi 
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Derek Higgins  wrote:

>
>
> On 1 February 2018 at 16:18, Emilien Macchi  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Derek Higgins  wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the
> networking stuff is different?
>

 I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset,
 see existing files for examples.

>>> Do you mean that we should use existing tests somewhere or create new
>>> ones?
>>>
>>
>> I mean we should use existing tempest tests from ironic, etc. Maybe just
>> a baremetal scenario that spawn a baremetal server and test ssh into it,
>> like we already have with other jobs.
>>
> Done, the current set of patches sets up a new non voting job
> "tripleo-ci-centos-7-scenario011-multinode-oooq-container" which setup up
> ironic in the overcloud and run the ironic tempest job
> "ironic_tempest_plugin.tests.scenario.test_baremetal_basic_
> ops.BaremetalBasicOps.test_baremetal_server_ops"
>
> its currently passing so I'd appreciate a few eyes on it before it becomes
> out of date again
> there are 4 patches starting here https://review.openstack.
> org/#/c/509728/19
>

Nice!
http://logs.openstack.org/28/509728/21/check/tripleo-ci-centos-7-scenario011-multinode-oooq-container/68cb9f4/logs/tempest.html.gz

Thanks for this work!
We'll make sure that lands soon.


>
>
>>
>> o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best
> way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't
> think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it?
>

 What kind of thing do you want to run exactly?

>>> The contents to this file will give you an idea, somewhere I need to
>>> setup a node that ironic will control with ipmi
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/19/ci/common/vbmc_setup.yaml
>>>
>>
>> extraconfig works for me in that case, I guess. Since we don't productize
>> this code and it's for CI only, it can live here imho.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Emilien Macchi
>>
>> 
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib
>> e
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Emilien Macchi
__
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] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud

2018-02-23 Thread Derek Higgins 
On 1 February 2018 at 16:18, Emilien Macchi  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Derek Higgins  wrote:
> [...]
>
>> o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the
 networking stuff is different?

>>>
>>> I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset,
>>> see existing files for examples.
>>>
>> Do you mean that we should use existing tests somewhere or create new
>> ones?
>>
>
> I mean we should use existing tempest tests from ironic, etc. Maybe just a
> baremetal scenario that spawn a baremetal server and test ssh into it, like
> we already have with other jobs.
>
Done, the current set of patches sets up a new non voting job
"tripleo-ci-centos-7-scenario011-multinode-oooq-container" which setup up
ironic in the overcloud and run the ironic tempest job
"ironic_tempest_plugin.tests.scenario.test_baremetal_basic_ops.BaremetalBasicOps.test_baremetal_server_ops"

its currently passing so I'd appreciate a few eyes on it before it becomes
out of date again
there are 4 patches starting here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/509728/19


>
> o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best
 way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't
 think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it?

>>>
>>> What kind of thing do you want to run exactly?
>>>
>> The contents to this file will give you an idea, somewhere I need to
>> setup a node that ironic will control with ipmi
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/19/ci/common/vbmc_setup.yaml
>>
>
> extraconfig works for me in that case, I guess. Since we don't productize
> this code and it's for CI only, it can live here imho.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Emilien Macchi
>
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud

2018-02-01 Thread Emilien Macchi 
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Derek Higgins  wrote:
[...]

> o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the
>>> networking stuff is different?
>>>
>>
>> I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset, see
>> existing files for examples.
>>
> Do you mean that we should use existing tests somewhere or create new
> ones?
>

I mean we should use existing tempest tests from ironic, etc. Maybe just a
baremetal scenario that spawn a baremetal server and test ssh into it, like
we already have with other jobs.

o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best
>>> way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't
>>> think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it?
>>>
>>
>> What kind of thing do you want to run exactly?
>>
> The contents to this file will give you an idea, somewhere I need to setup
> a node that ironic will control with ipmi
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/19/ci/common/vbmc_setup.yaml
>

extraconfig works for me in that case, I guess. Since we don't productize
this code and it's for CI only, it can live here imho.

Thanks,
-- 
Emilien Macchi
__
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] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud

2018-02-01 Thread Derek Higgins 
On 1 February 2018 at 15:36, Emilien Macchi  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Derek Higgins  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>I've been working on a set of patches as a WIP to test ironic in the
>> overcloud[1], the approach I've started with is to add ironic into the
>> overcloud controller in scenario004. Also to run a script on the controller
>> (as a NodeExtraConfigPost) that sets up a VM with vbmc that can then be
>> controlled by ironic. The WIP currently replaces the current tempest tests
>> with some commands to sanity test the setup. This essentially works but
>> things need to be cleaned up a bit so I've a few questions
>>
>> o Is scenario004 the correct choice?
>>
>
> Because we might increase the timeout risk on scenario004, I would
> recommend to create a new dedicated scenario that would deploy a very basic
> overcloud with just ironic + dependencies (keystone, glance, neutron, and
> nova?)
>

Ok, I can do this



>
>
>>
>> o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the
>> networking stuff is different?
>>
>
> I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset, see
> existing files for examples.
>
Do you mean that we should use existing tests somewhere or create new ones?



>
>
>>
>> o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best
>> way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't
>> think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it?
>>
>
> What kind of thing do you want to run exactly?
>
The contents to this file will give you an idea, somewhere I need to setup
a node that ironic will control with ipmi
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/19/ci/common/vbmc_setup.yaml


> I'll let the CI squad replies as well but I think we need a new scenario,
> that we would only run when touching ironic files in tripleo. Using
> scenario004 really increase the risk of timeout and we don't want it.
>
Ok




>
> Thanks for this work!
> --
> Emilien Macchi
>
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud

2018-02-01 Thread Emilien Macchi 
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Derek Higgins  wrote:

> Hi All,
>I've been working on a set of patches as a WIP to test ironic in the
> overcloud[1], the approach I've started with is to add ironic into the
> overcloud controller in scenario004. Also to run a script on the controller
> (as a NodeExtraConfigPost) that sets up a VM with vbmc that can then be
> controlled by ironic. The WIP currently replaces the current tempest tests
> with some commands to sanity test the setup. This essentially works but
> things need to be cleaned up a bit so I've a few questions
>
> o Is scenario004 the correct choice?
>

Because we might increase the timeout risk on scenario004, I would
recommend to create a new dedicated scenario that would deploy a very basic
overcloud with just ironic + dependencies (keystone, glance, neutron, and
nova?)


>
> o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the
> networking stuff is different?
>

I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset, see
existing files for examples.


>
> o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best
> way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't
> think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it?
>

What kind of thing do you want to run exactly?
I'll let the CI squad replies as well but I think we need a new scenario,
that we would only run when touching ironic files in tripleo. Using
scenario004 really increase the risk of timeout and we don't want it.

Thanks for this work!
-- 
Emilien Macchi
__
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] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud

2018-02-01 Thread Derek Higgins 
Hi All,
   I've been working on a set of patches as a WIP to test ironic in the
overcloud[1], the approach I've started with is to add ironic into the
overcloud controller in scenario004. Also to run a script on the controller
(as a NodeExtraConfigPost) that sets up a VM with vbmc that can then be
controlled by ironic. The WIP currently replaces the current tempest tests
with some commands to sanity test the setup. This essentially works but
things need to be cleaned up a bit so I've a few questions

o Is scenario004 the correct choice?

o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the
networking stuff is different?

o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best
way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't
think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it?

thanks,
Derek.

[1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261
  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/509728/
  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/509829/
__
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