Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS
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 dshul...@mirantis.com 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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 xar...@gmail.com 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 sgolovat...@mirantis.com 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 http://www.mirantis.ru/ 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 http://www.mirantis.ru/ 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
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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 dshul...@mirantis.com 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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 xar...@gmail.com 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 sgolovat...@mirantis.com 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:
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS
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 tnapier...@mirantis.com 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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 dshul...@mirantis.com 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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 xar...@gmail.com 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 sgolovat...@mirantis.com 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,
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS
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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 xar...@gmail.com 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 sgolovat...@mirantis.com 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 http://www.mirantis.ru/ 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 http://www.mirantis.ru/ 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...@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
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 dshul...@mirantis.com 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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 xar...@gmail.com 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 sgolovat...@mirantis.com 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 http://www.mirantis.ru/ 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 http://www.mirantis.ru/ 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...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS
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 vkuk...@mirantis.com 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 xar...@gmail.com 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 sgolovat...@mirantis.com 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 http://www.mirantis.ru/ 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 http://www.mirantis.ru/ 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
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 xar...@gmail.com 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 sgolovat...@mirantis.com 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 http://www.mirantis.ru/ 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
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 sgolovat...@mirantis.com 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] [Puppet] Manifests for granular deploy steps and testing results against the host OS
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
