Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] Something other than NOOP in our jenkins tests
Seems reasonable. If someone could put a "dumping ground" directory together that would help. (with an uncurated script as an example) So, i'm getting a feeling we should roll back the bashscript gate, and go back to noop. Thoughts? Best Regards, JJ Asghar c: 512.619.0722 t: @jjasghar irc: j^2 On 9/29/15 3:29 PM, Kris G. Lindgren wrote: > If we are going to be stringent on formatting – I would also like to > see us be relatively consistent on arguments/env variables that are > needed to make a script run. Some pull in ENV vars, some source a rc > file, some just say already source your rc file to start with, others > accept command options. It would be nice if we had a set of curated > scripts that all worked in a similar fashion. > > Also, to Joe's point. It would be nice if we had two place for > scripts. A "dumping ground" that people could share what they had. > And a curated one, where everything within the curated repo follows a > standard set of conventions/guidelines. > > ___ > Kris Lindgren > Senior Linux Systems Engineer > GoDaddy > > From: Joe Topjian > Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 1:43 PM > To: JJ Asghar > Cc: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>" > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] > Something other than NOOP in our jenkins tests > > So this will require bash scripts to adhere to bashate before being > accepted? Is it possible to have the check as non-voting? Does this > open the door to having other file types be checked? > > IMHO, it's more important for the OSOps project to foster > collaboration and contributions rather than worry about an accepted > style. > > As an example, yesterday's commits used hard-tabs: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228545/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228534/ > > I think we're going to see a lot of variation of styles coming in. > > I don't want to come off as sounding ignorant or disrespectful to > other projects that have guidelines in place -- I fully understand and > respect those decisions. > > Joe > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM, JJ Asghar <j...@chef.io > <mailto:j...@chef.io>> wrote: > > Awesome! That works! > > Best Regards, > JJ Asghar > c: 512.619.0722 t: @jjasghar irc: j^2 > > On 9/29/15 1:27 PM, Christian Berendt wrote: > > On 09/29/2015 07:45 PM, JJ Asghar wrote: > >> So this popped up today[1]. This seems like something that > should be > >> leveraged in our gates/validations? > > > > I prepared review requests to enable checks on the gates for > > > > * osops-tools-monitoring: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/ > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/> > > * osops-tools-generic: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/ > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/> > > > > Christian. > > > > > ___ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > > ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] Something other than NOOP in our jenkins tests
+1 I like that idea. I think it also ties in nicely with both the Monitoring and Tools WGs. Some projects have a directory called "contrib" that contains contributed items which might not be up to standard. Would that be a simple solution for the "dumping ground"? On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Kris G. Lindgren <klindg...@godaddy.com> wrote: > If we are going to be stringent on formatting – I would also like to see > us be relatively consistent on arguments/env variables that are needed to > make a script run. Some pull in ENV vars, some source a rc file, some just > say already source your rc file to start with, others accept command > options. It would be nice if we had a set of curated scripts that all > worked in a similar fashion. > > Also, to Joe's point. It would be nice if we had two place for scripts. A > "dumping ground" that people could share what they had. And a curated one, > where everything within the curated repo follows a standard set of > conventions/guidelines. > > ___ > Kris Lindgren > Senior Linux Systems Engineer > GoDaddy > > From: Joe Topjian > Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 1:43 PM > To: JJ Asghar > Cc: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org" > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] Something > other than NOOP in our jenkins tests > > So this will require bash scripts to adhere to bashate before being > accepted? Is it possible to have the check as non-voting? Does this open > the door to having other file types be checked? > > IMHO, it's more important for the OSOps project to foster collaboration > and contributions rather than worry about an accepted style. > > As an example, yesterday's commits used hard-tabs: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228545/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228534/ > > I think we're going to see a lot of variation of styles coming in. > > I don't want to come off as sounding ignorant or disrespectful to other > projects that have guidelines in place -- I fully understand and respect > those decisions. > > Joe > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM, JJ Asghar <j...@chef.io> wrote: > >> Awesome! That works! >> >> Best Regards, >> JJ Asghar >> c: 512.619.0722 t: @jjasghar irc: j^2 >> >> On 9/29/15 1:27 PM, Christian Berendt wrote: >> > On 09/29/2015 07:45 PM, JJ Asghar wrote: >> >> So this popped up today[1]. This seems like something that should be >> >> leveraged in our gates/validations? >> > >> > I prepared review requests to enable checks on the gates for >> > >> > * osops-tools-monitoring: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/ >> > * osops-tools-generic: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/ >> > >> > Christian. >> > >> >> >> ___ >> OpenStack-operators mailing list >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >> > > ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] Something other than NOOP in our jenkins tests
If we are going to be stringent on formatting – I would also like to see us be relatively consistent on arguments/env variables that are needed to make a script run. Some pull in ENV vars, some source a rc file, some just say already source your rc file to start with, others accept command options. It would be nice if we had a set of curated scripts that all worked in a similar fashion. Also, to Joe's point. It would be nice if we had two place for scripts. A "dumping ground" that people could share what they had. And a curated one, where everything within the curated repo follows a standard set of conventions/guidelines. ___ Kris Lindgren Senior Linux Systems Engineer GoDaddy From: Joe Topjian Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 1:43 PM To: JJ Asghar Cc: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>" Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] Something other than NOOP in our jenkins tests So this will require bash scripts to adhere to bashate before being accepted? Is it possible to have the check as non-voting? Does this open the door to having other file types be checked? IMHO, it's more important for the OSOps project to foster collaboration and contributions rather than worry about an accepted style. As an example, yesterday's commits used hard-tabs: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228545/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228534/ I think we're going to see a lot of variation of styles coming in. I don't want to come off as sounding ignorant or disrespectful to other projects that have guidelines in place -- I fully understand and respect those decisions. Joe On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM, JJ Asghar <j...@chef.io<mailto:j...@chef.io>> wrote: Awesome! That works! Best Regards, JJ Asghar c: 512.619.0722 t: @jjasghar irc: j^2 On 9/29/15 1:27 PM, Christian Berendt wrote: > On 09/29/2015 07:45 PM, JJ Asghar wrote: >> So this popped up today[1]. This seems like something that should be >> leveraged in our gates/validations? > > I prepared review requests to enable checks on the gates for > > * osops-tools-monitoring: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/ > * osops-tools-generic: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/ > > Christian. > ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] Something other than NOOP in our jenkins tests
On 09/29/2015 07:45 PM, JJ Asghar wrote: So this popped up today[1]. This seems like something that should be leveraged in our gates/validations? I prepared review requests to enable checks on the gates for * osops-tools-monitoring: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/ * osops-tools-generic: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/ Christian. -- Christian Berendt Cloud Solution Architect Mail: bere...@b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] Something other than NOOP in our jenkins tests
Awesome! That works! Best Regards, JJ Asghar c: 512.619.0722 t: @jjasghar irc: j^2 On 9/29/15 1:27 PM, Christian Berendt wrote: > On 09/29/2015 07:45 PM, JJ Asghar wrote: >> So this popped up today[1]. This seems like something that should be >> leveraged in our gates/validations? > > I prepared review requests to enable checks on the gates for > > * osops-tools-monitoring: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/ > * osops-tools-generic: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/ > > Christian. > ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
