Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Stepping down from PTL

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Dan,

Thank you for running the project!

Best regards
Georg


From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org  
on behalf of Dan Xu via Lists.Opnfv.Org 
Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2020, 16:03
To: opnfv-tech-discuss
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Stepping down from PTL

Hi,

I havent seen any other nominations until now, so I proposed 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/c/dovetail/+/69622

BR,
Dan Xu

发件人： Dan Xumailto:xuda...@huawei.com>>
收件人： 
opnfv-tech-discussmailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
抄送： Kanagaraj 
Manickammailto:kanagaraj.manic...@huawei.com>>;Lincoln
 Lavoiemailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>;Rabi, Abdel, 
Vodafone Groupmailto:abdel.r...@vodafone.com>>
主题： [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Stepping down from PTL
时间： 2020-01-03 18:27:33

Hi all,

As we are at the end of Dovetail 2019.12 release, it’s the time for Dovetail to 
have a new PTL. I am stepping down from Dovetail PTL.

I would like to nominate Kanagaraj Manickam to be the next PTL.

Kanag is having expertise in NFV cloud & Orchestration domains, focusing mainly 
on LFN OVP for VNF testing & certifications and he has established VNF Test 
platform (VTP) in ONAP VNFSDK for OVP and along with CVC team, he demoed VNF 
compliance and validation testing in ONS NA & EU 2019 conferences.
In OPNFV, he has involved in defining requirements for OVP VNF portals, VNF 
testing integration in Dovetail. And co-leading CNTT RC VNF work streams.
He is also contributing to TMForum, OpenAPI and leading ONAP CLI project. 
Earlier he has also worked as committer in OpenStack HEAT, Tacker projects and 
presented topics on HEAT in many OpenStack Summits.

Everyone is encouraged to nominate themselves or others for PTL. If there is 
more than one candidate within a week from now, we'll have an election.

Thanks,
Dan Xu


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#23899): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23899
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/69396357/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Stepping down from PTL

[Jim Baker]

I removed Dan Xu and added Kanagaraj Manickam to the opnfv-project-leads
mailing list.
Jim

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:03 AM Dan Xu  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I havent seen any other nominations until now, so I proposed
> https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/c/dovetail/+/69622
>
> BR,
> Dan Xu
>
> *发件人： *Dan Xu
> *收件人： *opnfv-tech-discuss
> *抄送： *Kanagaraj Manickam;Lincoln Lavoie<
> lylav...@iol.unh.edu>;Rabi, Abdel, Vodafone Group
> *主题： *[opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Stepping down from PTL
> *时间： *2020-01-03 18:27:33
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> As we are at the end of Dovetail 2019.12 release, it’s the time for
> Dovetail to have a new PTL. I am stepping down from Dovetail PTL.
>
>
>
> I would like to nominate Kanagaraj Manickam to be the next PTL.
>
>
>
> Kanag is having expertise in NFV cloud & Orchestration domains, focusing
> mainly on LFN OVP for VNF testing & certifications and he has established
> VNF Test platform (VTP) in ONAP VNFSDK for OVP and along with CVC team, he
> demoed VNF compliance and validation testing in ONS NA & EU 2019
> conferences.
>
> In OPNFV, he has involved in defining requirements for OVP VNF portals,
> VNF testing integration in Dovetail. And co-leading CNTT RC VNF work
> streams.
>
> He is also contributing to TMForum, OpenAPI and leading ONAP CLI project.
> Earlier he has also worked as committer in OpenStack HEAT, Tacker projects
> and presented topics on HEAT in many OpenStack Summits.
>
>
>
> Everyone is encouraged to nominate themselves or others for PTL. If there
> is more than one candidate within a week from now, we'll have an election.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan Xu
>
>
> 
>


-- 
Jim Baker
Linux Foundation Networking - Technical Program Manager
mobile: +1 970 227 6007
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#23897): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23897
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/69396357/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Stepping down from PTL

[Dan Xu]

Hi,

I havent seen any other nominations until now, so I proposed 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/c/dovetail/+/69622

BR,
Dan Xu

发件人： Dan Xumailto:xuda...@huawei.com>>
收件人： 
opnfv-tech-discussmailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
抄送： Kanagaraj 
Manickammailto:kanagaraj.manic...@huawei.com>>;Lincoln
 Lavoiemailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>;Rabi, Abdel, 
Vodafone Groupmailto:abdel.r...@vodafone.com>>
主题： [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Stepping down from PTL
时间： 2020-01-03 18:27:33

Hi all,

As we are at the end of Dovetail 2019.12 release, it’s the time for Dovetail to 
have a new PTL. I am stepping down from Dovetail PTL.

I would like to nominate Kanagaraj Manickam to be the next PTL.

Kanag is having expertise in NFV cloud & Orchestration domains, focusing mainly 
on LFN OVP for VNF testing & certifications and he has established VNF Test 
platform (VTP) in ONAP VNFSDK for OVP and along with CVC team, he demoed VNF 
compliance and validation testing in ONS NA & EU 2019 conferences.
In OPNFV, he has involved in defining requirements for OVP VNF portals, VNF 
testing integration in Dovetail. And co-leading CNTT RC VNF work streams.
He is also contributing to TMForum, OpenAPI and leading ONAP CLI project. 
Earlier he has also worked as committer in OpenStack HEAT, Tacker projects and 
presented topics on HEAT in many OpenStack Summits.

Everyone is encouraged to nominate themselves or others for PTL. If there is 
more than one candidate within a week from now, we'll have an election.

Thanks,
Dan Xu

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#23896): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23896
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/69396357/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Stepping down from PTL

[Lincoln Lavoie]

Hi Xudan,

With the upcoming meetings at the DDF, I'd like to see if we can pull
interested participants together for Dovetail.  I'm concerned we have a
very small set of participants and contributors currently and with the role
of this project within the OPNFV and CNTT community, I think we need to
determine a plan for moving forward in 2020 to accomplish the upcoming work
items / goals.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 5:27 AM Dan Xu  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> As we are at the end of Dovetail 2019.12 release, it’s the time for
> Dovetail to have a new PTL. I am stepping down from Dovetail PTL.
>
>
>
> I would like to nominate Kanagaraj Manickam to be the next PTL.
>
>
>
> Kanag is having expertise in NFV cloud & Orchestration domains, focusing
> mainly on LFN OVP for VNF testing & certifications and he has established
> VNF Test platform (VTP) in ONAP VNFSDK for OVP and along with CVC team, he
> demoed VNF compliance and validation testing in ONS NA & EU 2019
> conferences.
>
> In OPNFV, he has involved in defining requirements for OVP VNF portals,
> VNF testing integration in Dovetail. And co-leading CNTT RC VNF work
> streams.
>
> He is also contributing to TMForum, OpenAPI and leading ONAP CLI project.
> Earlier he has also worked as committer in OpenStack HEAT, Tacker projects
> and presented topics on HEAT in many OpenStack Summits.
>
>
>
> Everyone is encouraged to nominate themselves or others for PTL. If there
> is more than one candidate within a week from now, we'll have an election.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan Xu
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
>
> View/Reply Online (#23817):
> https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23817
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/69396357/923460
> Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  [
> lylav...@iol.unh.edu]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>


-- 
*Lincoln Lavoie*
Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies
21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824
lylav...@iol.unh.edu
https://www.iol.unh.edu
+1-603-674-2755 (m)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#23824): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23824
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/69396357/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

[via Lists.Opnfv.Org]

Hi All,
I was using dovetail: ovp-2.2.0 release,  it used to take 6.3.0 release of 
functest  .  As said by Dan , I set cinder = true in ovp-2.2.0 release of 
dovetail and it did not work. But when I used the latest release of dovetail, 
it took hunter release of functest ,and when I set cinder to true, it passed 
the volume test.

 openstack version: rocky

 I am using apex installer : hunter release

I think it should have automatically taken cinderv2 or v3 because they are the 
latest versions of cinder as cinder v1 is deprecated.


Thank you

Best Regards,

Malavika Krishna


From: xudan (N) 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 1:45 PM
To: ollivier.ced...@gmail.com ; Malavika Krishna 
; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 

Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests


Hi Cedric,



Thanks for helping looking into this problem.

As I mentioned in my last email that I have met this problem several weeks ago. 
I am using Dovetail latest (Functest Hunter) and XCI master.

Hope this could help to debug this problem.



Thanks,

Dan



From: ollivier.ced...@gmail.com [mailto:ollivier.ced...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 3:56 PM
To: xudan (N) ; malavik...@thinkpalm.com; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests



Hi,



We could rather add the right endpoint according to the OpenStack release under 
test.

Could you please precise the release here?



From an overall point of view, that hook is incorrect because Rally must 
discover the service and then must write the right tempest config.

Also we may also care about the compatibilities between OS and Functest which 
is very old when executed via Dovetail.



They are few upstream changes about cinder endpoints and we (Functest + Rally) 
made few many month ago related to latest cinder changes (mostly about 
block-storage).

https://review.opendev.org/#/c/510939/

https://review.opendev.org/#/c/652405/



I may also appreciate any test vs latest Functest (Iruya or Hunter) in that 
conditions.



Cédric



Le jeudi 29 août 2019 à 01:38 +, xudan a écrit :

Hi Malavika,



I also met this before. It’s because of that there are only ‘cinderv2’ and 
‘cinderv3’ services in the service list. For all tempest test cases, they 
automatically generate a default tempest.conf file for running all of them. 
While there is no service named ‘cinder’ in the list, so the service ‘cinder’ 
will be set as ‘False’ in tempest.conf. That’s the reason why all volume 
related tests skipped and you can also find this file under 
$DOVETAIL_HOME/results/.



Besides the default tempest.conf, Dovetail also supports end users to make 
changes to this file. The ‘tenpest_conf.yaml’ under $DOVETAIL_HOME/pre_config 
is used to do this.

I suggest you to add the following lines to this file and try again. It works 
for me.



service_available:

cinder: True



Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions.



BR,

Dan





From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of via Lists.Opnfv.Org
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 3:08 PM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests



Hi all,



I was trying dovetail testing in our infrastructure. All the volume service 
tests are skipped. The reason given is cinder service is not available. But the 
service is available in the openstack and I could attach and detach volumes 
through dashboard and cli. Please help me to rectify it.

The openstack service list is listed below







+--+++

| ID   | Name   | Type   |

+--+++

| 0def4826e05848e7918e076f77dbacf9 | glance | image  |

| 0f1cc869dd594718ae0f5c18698dc85d | heat-cfn   | cloudformation |

| 5587c327181544e080056211e1703be4 | gnocchi| metric |

| 898efdf9d7c0428bb3bd5b8e6af8e874 | heat   | orchestration  |

| a400238085e24112b4320cc6f4b803a2 | cinderv2   | volumev2   |

| a9b2885022e545cbaaae6dcbe6498fa8 | aodh   | alarming   |

| adedf196a7e44929b1b6f85e4f7c67e0 | panko  | event  |

| aec0887ed93c45b196c141f7945db0d8 | nova   | compute|

| afe3685d798b4940b5922ae11f87cf0b | cinderv3   | volumev3   |

| b5342f4efa364d54bd74b02600cb2d00 | keystone   | identity   |

| cdfd3b6a5dd94e94898c8f3f3c82a324 | swift  | object-store   |

| d6b3d664783e4f7d9b88d96119bf1dbc | neutron| network|

| d82ce54a51054d1dbd3b300b17905955 | ceilometer | metering   |

| f83e3ee618bd4cbdb09bcc6395

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

[Cedric OLLIVIER]

Hi,
Forcing cinder = true could please the SUT here which may be wrong
regarding verification or certification.
At first glance , I think block-storage should have been created in
Apex (I'm very suprised we didn't catch it in OPNFV gates) and XCI.
I'm diving into the details but devstack (and the comment in code) is
clear.
Thank your for the feedbacks
Cédric
On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 06:02 +, Malavika Krishna wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I was using dovetail: ovp-2.2.0 release,  it used to take 6.3.0
> release of functest  .  As said by Dan , I set cinder = true in ovp-
> 2.2.0 release of dovetail and it did not work. But when I used the
> latest release of dovetail, it took hunter release of
>  functest ,and when I set cinder to true, it passed the volume test. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  openstack version: rocky
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
>  I am using apex installer : hunter release
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it should have automatically taken cinderv2 or v3 because
> they are the latest versions of cinder as cinder v1 is deprecated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Malavika Krishna
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: xudan (N) 
> 
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 1:45 PM
> 
> To: ollivier.ced...@gmail.com ; Malavika
> Krishna ; 
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org <
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> 
> Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume
> related tests
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Cedric,
>  
> Thanks for helping looking into this problem.
> As I mentioned in my last email that I have met this problem several
> weeks ago. I am using Dovetail latest (Functest Hunter) and XCI
> master.
> Hope this could help to debug this problem.
>  
> Thanks,
> Dan
>  
> 
> 
> From: ollivier.ced...@gmail.com [mailto:ollivier.ced...@gmail.com]
> 
> 
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 3:56 PM
> 
> To: xudan (N) ; malavik...@thinkpalm.com; 
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume
> related tests
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> We could rather add the right endpoint according to the OpenStack
> release under test.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please precise the release here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> From an overall point of view, that hook is incorrect because Rally
> must discover the service and then must write the right tempest
> config.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also we may also care about the compatibilities between OS and
> Functest which is very old when executed via Dovetail.
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> They are few upstream changes about cinder endpoints and we (Functest
> + Rally) made few many month ago related to latest cinder changes
> (mostly about block-storage).
> 
> 
> https://review.opendev.org/#/c/510939/
> 
> 
> 
> https://review.opendev.org/#/c/652405/
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> I may also appreciate any test vs latest Functest (Iruya or Hunter)
> in that conditions.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Cédric
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Le jeudi 29 août 2019
> à 01:38 +, xudan a 
> écrit :
> 
> > Hi Malavika,
> >  
> > I also met this before. It’s because of that there are only
> > ‘cinderv2’ and ‘cinderv3’ services in the service list. For all
> > tempest test cases,
> >  they automatically generate a default tempest.conf file for
> > running all of them. While there is no service named ‘cinder’ in
> > the list, so the service ‘cinder’ will be set as ‘False’ in
> > tempest.conf. That’s the reason why all volume related tests
> > skipped and
> >  you can also find this file under $DOVETAIL_HOME/results/.
> >  
> > Besides the default tempest.conf, Dovetail also supports end users
> > to make changes to this file. The ‘tenpest_conf.yaml’ under
> > $DOVETAIL_HOME/pre_config
> >  is used to do this.
> > I suggest you to add the following lines to this file and try
> > again. It works for me.
> >  
> > service_available:
> > cinder: True
> >  
> > Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions.
> >  
> > BR,
> > Dan
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > From:
> > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org]
> > On Behalf Of via Lists.Opnfv.Org
> > 
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 3:08 PM
> > 
> > To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.o

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

[xudan]

The INSTALLER_TYPE is osa when I deployed my SUT, but I think it should be 
Rocky.
export 
OPENSTACK_OSA_VERSION=${OPENSTACK_OSA_VERSION:-"2087cd98f28b35f655ca398d25d2a6c71e38328e"}

And I have tried with XCI_FLAVOR noha and mini. Always failed to deploy with ha.
The endpoints related to cinder are list:
root@ubuntu:~# openstack endpoint list | grep cinder<mailto:root@ubuntu:~# 
openstack endpoint list | grep cinder>
| 33080d378ebb43e49048ea1379017b2e | RegionOne | cinderv3 | volumev3   
| True| admin | http://172.29.236.11:8776/v3/%(tenant_id)s  
|<http://172.29.236.11:8776/v3/%25(tenant_id)s  |>
| 4e34e50b01f34299981a5b2c77f5436b | RegionOne | cinderv3 | volumev3   
| True| internal  | http://172.29.236.11:8776/v3/%(tenant_id)s  
|<http://172.29.236.11:8776/v3/%25(tenant_id)s  |>
| 607297c0907a4cbb9a9d715cd4a33d4c | RegionOne | cinderv2 | volumev2   
| True| admin | http://172.29.236.11:8776/v2/%(tenant_id)s  
|<http://172.29.236.11:8776/v2/%25(tenant_id)s  |>
| 6e7ba49fd55c4e719de17c92f95c1a14 | RegionOne | cinderv2 | volumev2   
| True| internal  | http://172.29.236.11:8776/v2/%(tenant_id)s  
|<http://172.29.236.11:8776/v2/%25(tenant_id)s  |>
| 78097a28501c4eccb39be11598b74b37 | RegionOne | cinderv3 | volumev3   
| True| public| https://192.168.122.3:8776/v3/%(tenant_id)s 
|<https://192.168.122.3:8776/v3/%25(tenant_id)s |>
| eb999ef29e334678be20e1ca59606fc4 | RegionOne | cinderv2 | volumev2   
| True| public| https://192.168.122.3:8776/v2/%(tenant_id)s 
|<https://192.168.122.3:8776/v2/%25(tenant_id)s |>

As you show to us, there are service named ‘cinder’ there besides ‘cinderv2’ 
and ‘cinderv3’. So it’s ok for your SUT to generate the right  tempest.conf (in 
which ‘cinder: True’).
But the problem Malavika and I met is that there is no ‘cinder’ service, only 
‘cinderv2’ and ‘cinderv3’, so it sets ‘cinder: False’ in tempest.conf.

From: ollivier.ced...@gmail.com [mailto:ollivier.ced...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 8:11 PM
To: xudan (N) ; malavik...@thinkpalm.com; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

Hi,

If I'm not wrong, XCI still deploys OpenStack Rocky, right?
https://git.opnfv.org/releng-xci/tree/xci/config/pinned-versions#n40

Devstack creates 'block-storage' which seems fine regarding the comments
https://github.com/openstack/devstack/blob/stable/rocky/lib/cinder#L350
https://github.com/openstack/devstack/blob/stable/rocky/lib/cinder#L354
https://github.com/openstack/service-types-authority/blob/master/service-types.yaml#L72

Here are the endpoints defined in our SUT (Rocky)

cinder   | block-storage  | True| public| 
http://172.30.13.91/volume/v3/$(project_id)s

cinderv2 | volumev2   | True| public| 
http://172.30.13.91/volume/v2/$(project_id)s

cinderv3 | volumev3   | True| public| 
http://172.30.13.91/volume/v3/$(project_id)s

cinder   | volume | True| public| 
http://172.30.13.91/volume/v1/$(project_id)s



https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/functest/job/functest-hunter-daily/221/



Cédric


Le jeudi 29 août 2019 à 08:15 +, xudan (N) a écrit :
Hi Cedric,

Thanks for helping looking into this problem.
As I mentioned in my last email that I have met this problem several weeks ago. 
I am using Dovetail latest (Functest Hunter) and XCI master.
Hope this could help to debug this problem.

Thanks,
Dan

From: ollivier.ced...@gmail.com<mailto:ollivier.ced...@gmail.com> 
[mailto:ollivier.ced...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 3:56 PM
To: xudan (N) mailto:xuda...@huawei.com>>; 
malavik...@thinkpalm.com<mailto:malavik...@thinkpalm.com>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

Hi,

We could rather add the right endpoint according to the OpenStack release under 
test.
Could you please precise the release here?

From an overall point of view, that hook is incorrect because Rally must 
discover the service and then must write the right tempest config.
Also we may also care about the compatibilities between OS and Functest which 
is very old when executed via Dovetail.

They are few upstream changes about cinder endpoints and we (Functest + Rally) 
made few many month ago related to latest cinder changes (mostly about 
block-storage).
https://review.opendev.org/#/c/510939/
https://review.opendev.org/#/c/652405/

I may also appreciate any test vs latest Functest (Iruya or Hunter) in that 
conditions.

Cédric

Le jeudi 29 août 2019 à 01:38 +, xudan a écrit :
Hi Malavika,

I also met this before. It’s because of that there are only ‘cinderv2’ and 
‘cinderv3’ services in the service list. For all tempest test cases, they 
automatically generate a default tempest

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

[Cedric OLLIVIER]

Hi,
If I'm not wrong, XCI still deploys OpenStack Rocky, right?
https://git.opnfv.org/releng-xci/tree/xci/config/pinned-versions#n40
Devstack creates 'block-storage' which seems fine regarding the
comments
https://github.com/openstack/devstack/blob/stable/rocky/lib/cinder#L350https://github.com/openstack/devstack/blob/stable/rocky/lib/cinder#L354https://github.com/openstack/service-types-authority/blob/master/service-types.yaml#L72
Here are the endpoints defined in our SUT (Rocky)cinder   | block-
storage  | True| public| 
http://172.30.13.91/volume/v3/$(project_id)scinderv2 |
volumev2   | True| public| 
http://172.30.13.91/volume/v2/$(project_id)scinderv3 |
volumev3   | True| public| 
http://172.30.13.91/volume/v3/$(project_id)scinder   |
volume | True| public| 
http://172.30.13.91/volume/v1/$(project_id)s
https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/functest/job/functest-hunter-daily/221/
Cédric
Le jeudi 29 août 2019 à 08:15 +, xudan (N) a écrit :
> Hi Cedric,
>  
> Thanks for helping looking into this problem.
> As I mentioned in my last email that I have met this problem several
> weeks ago. I am using Dovetail latest (Functest Hunter) and XCI
> master.
> Hope this could help to debug this problem.
>  
> Thanks,
> Dan
>  
> 
> 
> From: ollivier.ced...@gmail.com [mailto:ollivier.ced...@gmail.com]
> 
> 
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 3:56 PM
> 
> To: xudan (N) ; malavik...@thinkpalm.com; 
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume
> related tests
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> We could rather add the right endpoint according to the OpenStack
> release under test.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please precise the release here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> From an overall point of view, that hook is incorrect because Rally
> must discover the service and then must write the right tempest
> config.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also we may also care about the compatibilities between OS and
> Functest which is very old when executed via Dovetail.
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> They are few upstream changes about cinder endpoints and we (Functest
> + Rally) made few many month ago related to latest cinder changes
> (mostly about block-storage).
> 
> 
> https://review.opendev.org/#/c/510939/
> 
> 
> 
> https://review.opendev.org/#/c/652405/
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> I may also appreciate any test vs latest Functest (Iruya or Hunter)
> in that conditions.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Cédric
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Le jeudi 29 août 2019
> à 01:38 +, xudan a 
> écrit :
> 
> > Hi Malavika,
> >  
> > I also met this before. It’s because of that there are only
> > ‘cinderv2’ and ‘cinderv3’ services in the service list. For all
> > tempest test cases, they
> >  automatically generate a default tempest.conf file for running all
> > of them. While there is no service named ‘cinder’ in the list, so
> > the service ‘cinder’ will be set as ‘False’ in tempest.conf. That’s
> > the reason why all volume related tests skipped and you
> >  can also find this file under $DOVETAIL_HOME/results/.
> >  
> > Besides the default tempest.conf, Dovetail also supports end users
> > to make changes to this file. The ‘tenpest_conf.yaml’ under
> > $DOVETAIL_HOME/pre_config
> >  is used to do this.
> > I suggest you to add the following lines to this file and try
> > again. It works for me.
> >  
> > service_available:
> > cinder: True
> >  
> > Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions.
> >  
> > BR,
> > Dan
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > From:
> > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org]
> > On Behalf Of via Lists.Opnfv.Org
> > 
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 3:08 PM
> > 
> > To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > 
> > Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > 
> > Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related
> > tests
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > I was trying dovetail testing in our infrastructure. All the volume
> > service tests are skipped. The reason given is cinder service is
> > not available. But the service
> >  is available in the openstack and I could attach and detach
> > volumes through dashboard and cli. Please help me to rectify it.
> > 
> > 
> > The openstac

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

[xudan]

Hi Cedric,

Thanks for helping looking into this problem.
As I mentioned in my last email that I have met this problem several weeks ago. 
I am using Dovetail latest (Functest Hunter) and XCI master.
Hope this could help to debug this problem.

Thanks,
Dan

From: ollivier.ced...@gmail.com [mailto:ollivier.ced...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 3:56 PM
To: xudan (N) ; malavik...@thinkpalm.com; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

Hi,

We could rather add the right endpoint according to the OpenStack release under 
test.
Could you please precise the release here?

From an overall point of view, that hook is incorrect because Rally must 
discover the service and then must write the right tempest config.
Also we may also care about the compatibilities between OS and Functest which 
is very old when executed via Dovetail.

They are few upstream changes about cinder endpoints and we (Functest + Rally) 
made few many month ago related to latest cinder changes (mostly about 
block-storage).
https://review.opendev.org/#/c/510939/
https://review.opendev.org/#/c/652405/

I may also appreciate any test vs latest Functest (Iruya or Hunter) in that 
conditions.

Cédric

Le jeudi 29 août 2019 à 01:38 +, xudan a écrit :
Hi Malavika,

I also met this before. It’s because of that there are only ‘cinderv2’ and 
‘cinderv3’ services in the service list. For all tempest test cases, they 
automatically generate a default tempest.conf file for running all of them. 
While there is no service named ‘cinder’ in the list, so the service ‘cinder’ 
will be set as ‘False’ in tempest.conf. That’s the reason why all volume 
related tests skipped and you can also find this file under 
$DOVETAIL_HOME/results/.

Besides the default tempest.conf, Dovetail also supports end users to make 
changes to this file. The ‘tenpest_conf.yaml’ under $DOVETAIL_HOME/pre_config 
is used to do this.
I suggest you to add the following lines to this file and try again. It works 
for me.

service_available:
cinder: True

Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions.

BR,
Dan


From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of via Lists.Opnfv.Org
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 3:08 PM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

Hi all,

I was trying dovetail testing in our infrastructure. All the volume service 
tests are skipped. The reason given is cinder service is not available. But the 
service is available in the openstack and I could attach and detach volumes 
through dashboard and cli. Please help me to rectify it.
The openstack service list is listed below



+--+++
| ID   | Name   | Type   |
+--+++
| 0def4826e05848e7918e076f77dbacf9 | glance | image  |
| 0f1cc869dd594718ae0f5c18698dc85d | heat-cfn   | cloudformation |
| 5587c327181544e080056211e1703be4 | gnocchi| metric |
| 898efdf9d7c0428bb3bd5b8e6af8e874 | heat   | orchestration  |
| a400238085e24112b4320cc6f4b803a2 | cinderv2   | volumev2   |
| a9b2885022e545cbaaae6dcbe6498fa8 | aodh   | alarming   |
| adedf196a7e44929b1b6f85e4f7c67e0 | panko  | event  |
| aec0887ed93c45b196c141f7945db0d8 | nova   | compute|
| afe3685d798b4940b5922ae11f87cf0b | cinderv3   | volumev3   |
| b5342f4efa364d54bd74b02600cb2d00 | keystone   | identity   |
| cdfd3b6a5dd94e94898c8f3f3c82a324 | swift  | object-store   |
| d6b3d664783e4f7d9b88d96119bf1dbc | neutron| network|
| d82ce54a51054d1dbd3b300b17905955 | ceilometer | metering   |
| f83e3ee618bd4cbdb09bcc6395718722 | placement  | placement  |
+--+++


cinder service list is also given below:

+--+--+--+-+---++-+
| Binary   | Host | Zone | Status  | 
State | Updated_at | Disabled Reason |
+--+--+--+-+---++-+
| cinder-scheduler | overcloud-controller-0   | nova | enabled | up 
   | 2019-08-28T06:53:55.00 | -   |
| cinder-volume| overcloud-controller-0@tripleo_iscsi | nova | enabled | up 
   | 2019-08-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

[Cedric OLLIVIER]

Hi,
We could rather add the right endpoint according to the OpenStack
release under test.Could you please precise the release here?
>From an overall point of view, that hook is incorrect because Rally
must discover the service and then must write the right tempest
config.Also we may also care about the compatibilities between OS and
Functest which is very old when executed via Dovetail.
They are few upstream changes about cinder endpoints and we (Functest +
Rally) made few many month ago related to latest cinder changes (mostly
about block-storage).
https://review.opendev.org/#/c/510939/https://review.opendev.org/#/c/652405/

I may also appreciate any test vs latest Functest (Iruya or Hunter) in
that conditions.
Cédric
Le jeudi 29 août 2019 à 01:38 +, xudan a écrit :
> Hi Malavika,
>  
> I also met this before. It’s because of that there are only
> ‘cinderv2’ and ‘cinderv3’ services in the service list. For all
> tempest test cases, they
>  automatically generate a default tempest.conf file for running all
> of them. While there is no service named ‘cinder’ in the list, so the
> service ‘cinder’ will be set as ‘False’ in tempest.conf. That’s the
> reason why all volume related tests skipped and you
>  can also find this file under $DOVETAIL_HOME/results/.
>  
> Besides the default tempest.conf, Dovetail also supports end users to
> make changes to this file. The ‘tenpest_conf.yaml’ under
> $DOVETAIL_HOME/pre_config
>  is used to do this.
> I suggest you to add the following lines to this file and try again.
> It works for me.
>  
> service_available:
> cinder: True
>  
> Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions.
>  
> BR,
> Dan
>  
>  
> 
> 
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org]
> On Behalf Of via Lists.Opnfv.Org
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 3:08 PM
> 
> To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 
> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related
> tests
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> I was trying dovetail testing in our infrastructure. All the volume
> service tests are skipped. The reason given is cinder service is not
> available. But the service
>  is available in the openstack and I could attach and detach volumes
> through dashboard and cli. Please help me to rectify it.
> 
> 
> The openstack service list is listed below
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> +--+++
> 
> | ID   | Name   | Type   |
> 
> 
> +--+++
> 
> 
> | 0def4826e05848e7918e076f77dbacf9 | glance | image  |
> 
> 
> | 0f1cc869dd594718ae0f5c18698dc85d | heat-cfn   | cloudformation |
> 
> 
> | 5587c327181544e080056211e1703be4 | gnocchi| metric |
> 
> 
> | 898efdf9d7c0428bb3bd5b8e6af8e874 | heat   | orchestration  |
> 
> 
> | a400238085e24112b4320cc6f4b803a2 | cinderv2   | volumev2   |
> 
> 
> | a9b2885022e545cbaaae6dcbe6498fa8 | aodh   | alarming   |
> 
> 
> | adedf196a7e44929b1b6f85e4f7c67e0 | panko  | event  |
> 
> 
> | aec0887ed93c45b196c141f7945db0d8 | nova   | compute|
> 
> 
> | afe3685d798b4940b5922ae11f87cf0b | cinderv3   | volumev3   |
> 
> 
> | b5342f4efa364d54bd74b02600cb2d00 | keystone   | identity   |
> 
> 
> | cdfd3b6a5dd94e94898c8f3f3c82a324 | swift  | object-store   |
> 
> 
> | d6b3d664783e4f7d9b88d96119bf1dbc | neutron| network|
> 
> 
> | d82ce54a51054d1dbd3b300b17905955 | ceilometer | metering   |
> 
> 
> | f83e3ee618bd4cbdb09bcc6395718722 | placement  | placement  |
> 
> 
> +--+++
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> cinder service list is also given below:
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> +--+--+--+---
> --+---++-+
> 
> | Binary   | Host | Zone |
> Status  | State | Updated_at | Disabled Reason |
> 
> 
> +--+--+--+---
> --+---++-+
> 
> 
> | cinder-scheduler | overcloud-controller-0   | nova |
> enabled | up| 2019-08-28T06:53:55.00 | -   |
> 
> 
> | cinder-volume| overcloud-controller-0@tripleo_iscsi | nova |
> enabled | up| 2019-08-28T06:54:02.00 | -   |
> 
> 
> +--+--+--+---
> --+---++-+
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Malavika Krishna
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is strictly confidential and
> intended only for the person or entity to 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

[xudan]

Hi Malavika,

I also met this before. It's because of that there are only 'cinderv2' and 
'cinderv3' services in the service list. For all tempest test cases, they 
automatically generate a default tempest.conf file for running all of them. 
While there is no service named 'cinder' in the list, so the service 'cinder' 
will be set as 'False' in tempest.conf. That's the reason why all volume 
related tests skipped and you can also find this file under 
$DOVETAIL_HOME/results/.

Besides the default tempest.conf, Dovetail also supports end users to make 
changes to this file. The 'tenpest_conf.yaml' under $DOVETAIL_HOME/pre_config 
is used to do this.
I suggest you to add the following lines to this file and try again. It works 
for me.

service_available:
cinder: True

Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions.

BR,
Dan


From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of via Lists.Opnfv.Org
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 3:08 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Failure of volume related tests

Hi all,

I was trying dovetail testing in our infrastructure. All the volume service 
tests are skipped. The reason given is cinder service is not available. But the 
service is available in the openstack and I could attach and detach volumes 
through dashboard and cli. Please help me to rectify it.
The openstack service list is listed below



+--+++
| ID   | Name   | Type   |
+--+++
| 0def4826e05848e7918e076f77dbacf9 | glance | image  |
| 0f1cc869dd594718ae0f5c18698dc85d | heat-cfn   | cloudformation |
| 5587c327181544e080056211e1703be4 | gnocchi| metric |
| 898efdf9d7c0428bb3bd5b8e6af8e874 | heat   | orchestration  |
| a400238085e24112b4320cc6f4b803a2 | cinderv2   | volumev2   |
| a9b2885022e545cbaaae6dcbe6498fa8 | aodh   | alarming   |
| adedf196a7e44929b1b6f85e4f7c67e0 | panko  | event  |
| aec0887ed93c45b196c141f7945db0d8 | nova   | compute|
| afe3685d798b4940b5922ae11f87cf0b | cinderv3   | volumev3   |
| b5342f4efa364d54bd74b02600cb2d00 | keystone   | identity   |
| cdfd3b6a5dd94e94898c8f3f3c82a324 | swift  | object-store   |
| d6b3d664783e4f7d9b88d96119bf1dbc | neutron| network|
| d82ce54a51054d1dbd3b300b17905955 | ceilometer | metering   |
| f83e3ee618bd4cbdb09bcc6395718722 | placement  | placement  |
+--+++


cinder service list is also given below:

+--+--+--+-+---++-+
| Binary   | Host | Zone | Status  | 
State | Updated_at | Disabled Reason |
+--+--+--+-+---++-+
| cinder-scheduler | overcloud-controller-0   | nova | enabled | up 
   | 2019-08-28T06:53:55.00 | -   |
| cinder-volume| overcloud-controller-0@tripleo_iscsi | nova | enabled | up 
   | 2019-08-28T06:54:02.00 | -   |
+--+--+--+-+---++-+




Thank you

Regards,
Malavika Krishna




Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is strictly confidential and intended only 
for the person or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information 
that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you 
are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, disclose, distribute or take 
any action in reliance on information contained in this e-mail. If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and 
destroy the original message and all copies thereof.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#23507): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23507
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/33057285/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting 2019-8-28

[Trevor Lovett]

Per the meeting today, here is the sample results.json file.  We will populate 
the checksum with a sha-256 hash, and then update the version tag once the 
value is set.


Thanks,

Trevor Lovett
Lead Member of Technical Staff
AT Labs, Operational Automation and Program Management

AT Services, Inc.
Dallas, TX
m  314.401.8702  |  trevor.lov...@att.com

From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of xudan
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 4:01 AM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting 2019-8-28

Hi all,

This is the preliminary agenda for today's call.


  *   Review current gerrit patches
  *   AOB

Meeting Info

  *   Weekly Technical Discussion Wednesday at 13:00-14:00 UTC (6:00-7:00 
Pacific Daylight Time)
  *   
https://zoom.us/j/2362828999
  *   IRC channel: IRC channel: #opnfv-dovetail@ Freenode (Web 
Chat)
Best regards,
Dan Xu



results.json
Description: results.json
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#23504): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23504
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/33055177/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] DOVETAIL + XCI , Successful Execution

[Panagiotis Karalis]

Hello community,



In continuation of my previous email, I'd like to state that the first phase of 
the integration of dovetail tool with XCI installer is completed.

The dovetail tool is working properly on environment prepared by XCI installer.

The specific instructions for the proper installation of the dovetail tool with 
XCI installer have been pushed through new patch [1]

[the impact is on the documentation part of dovetail project].



Trying to execute the entire set of dovetail test cases, I have noticed that 
there are a lot of PASS and FAIL (almost 50% PASS-50% FAIL).

Hence, the next phase is to solve the issue(s) of the dovetail test scenarios 
which have been executed but not successfully.

Firstly, I have tried to collect those test cases along with a short 
description of the Error message(s).

Secondly, I'm trying to investigate further the aforementioned failures and 
find the proper solution for each of them.

Currently, I'm working on this task and on this jira ticket [2].



Of course, any support and help on that is more than welcome!



[1] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/68088/

[2] https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/DOVETAIL-778



Have a nice day,

BR

Panos





From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Panagiotis Karalis
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 6:07 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org; fatih.degirme...@est.tech
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] DOVETAIL + XCI , Successful Execution



Hi all,



After my first attempt, which was not so succeed [1], I tried something 
different and using a proper approach.

I've deployed from scratch the XCI installer, having as XCI scenario 
os-nosdn-nofeature-noha.



The results of those tests were much better:



1-  The test scenarios which are related to the healthcheck suite, are run 
properly using the opnfv/functest-healthcheck image (attached logs).

2-  Whatever I have tried from custom tempest test scenarios which are 
related to the opnfv/functest-smoke image, are run properly (attached logs).



The investigation for the rest categories of test scenarios is in progress.

I have uploaded a patch with the impact on dovetail.

The patch is in progress, nothing stable yet.



[1] XCI scenario = os-odl-sfc-noha and executing the SFC test cases (attached 
email)



Have a nice weekend!

BR

Panos





Panagiotis Karalis
Software Engineer

SDN/NFV Team
__
Intracom Telecom
19.7 km Markopoulou Ave., Peania, GR 19002
t:   +30 2106671499
  pkara...@intracom-telecom.com
  www.intracom-telecom.com



















JOIN US

MWC Shanghai

26-28 June
Shanghai, China



GITEX Technology Week

6-10 October

Dubai, UAE



MWC Los Angeles

22-24 October

Los Angeles, USA



Futurecom

28-31 October
Sao Paulo, Brazil



AfricaCom

12-14 November
Cape Town, South Africa



MWC Barcelona

24-27 February 2020

Barcelona, Spain



The information in this e-mail message and any attachments are intended only 
for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential. 
If you have received this transmission in error, and you are not an intended 
recipient, be aware that any copying, disclosure, distribution or use of this 
transmission or its contents is prohibited. Intracom Telecom and the sender 
accept no liability for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer 
system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this 
email. Views or opinions expressed in this message may be those of the author 
and may not necessarily represent those of Intracom Telecom.





-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#23321): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23321
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/32159327/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] DOVETAIL + XCI , Successful Execution

[Panagiotis Karalis]

Hi Georg,



To be frank, I have not checked this yet. I have focused to integration of 
Dovetail with XCI.

Analyzing further the results of those tests, I'd like to mention that those 
results are the same even if those tests are run through dovetail tool on XCI 
or those tests are run through directly on XCI.



The overall result is FAIL due to those skipped test cases.

This is matter of dovetail tool and this is a normal behavior of dovetail tool 
(only if every sub-testcase is pass, the overall verdict is pass).



I'll let you know for any new finding.

BR

Panos





From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 10:53 PM
To: Panagiotis Karalis ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] DOVETAIL + XCI , Successful Execution



Hi Panos,



Thanks for sharing your results and pushing a corresponding patch for Dovetail.



One question: in the tempest compute run, two test cases were skipped. Both are 
related to boot-from-volume operations. Any idea why they were skipped? Is 
Cinder available?



Best regards

Georg



From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>  
mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> 
> On Behalf Of Panagiotis Karalis via Lists.Opnfv.Org
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 5:07 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] DOVETAIL + XCI , Successful Execution



Hi all,



After my first attempt, which was not so succeed [1], I tried something 
different and using a proper approach.

I've deployed from scratch the XCI installer, having as XCI scenario 
os-nosdn-nofeature-noha.



The results of those tests were much better:



1-  The test scenarios which are related to the healthcheck suite, are run 
properly using the opnfv/functest-healthcheck image (attached logs).

2-  Whatever I have tried from custom tempest test scenarios which are 
related to the opnfv/functest-smoke image, are run properly (attached logs).



The investigation for the rest categories of test scenarios is in progress.

I have uploaded a patch with the impact on dovetail.

The patch is in progress, nothing stable yet.



[1] XCI scenario = os-odl-sfc-noha and executing the SFC test cases (attached 
email)



Have a nice weekend!

BR

Panos





Panagiotis Karalis
Software Engineer

SDN/NFV Team
__
Intracom Telecom
19.7 km Markopoulou Ave., Peania, GR 19002
t:   +30 2106671499
 <mailto:pkara...@intracom-telecom.com> pkara...@intracom-telecom.com
 <http://www.intracom-telecom.com/> www.intracom-telecom.com



















JOIN US

MWC Shanghai

26-28 June
Shanghai, China



GITEX Technology Week

6-10 October

Dubai, UAE



MWC Los Angeles

22-24 October

Los Angeles, USA



Futurecom

28-31 October
Sao Paulo, Brazil



AfricaCom

12-14 November
Cape Town, South Africa



MWC Barcelona

24-27 February 2020

Barcelona, Spain



The information in this e-mail message and any attachments are intended only 
for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential. 
If you have received this transmission in error, and you are not an intended 
recipient, be aware that any copying, disclosure, distribution or use of this 
transmission or its contents is prohibited. Intracom Telecom and the sender 
accept no liability for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer 
system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this 
email. Views or opinions expressed in this message may be those of the author 
and may not necessarily represent those of Intracom Telecom.





-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#23273): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23273
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/32159327/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] DOVETAIL + XCI , Successful Execution

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Panos,

Thanks for sharing your results and pushing a corresponding patch for Dovetail.

One question: in the tempest compute run, two test cases were skipped. Both are 
related to boot-from-volume operations. Any idea why they were skipped? Is 
Cinder available?

Best regards
Georg

From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org  
On Behalf Of Panagiotis Karalis via Lists.Opnfv.Org
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 5:07 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] DOVETAIL + XCI , Successful Execution

Hi all,

After my first attempt, which was not so succeed [1], I tried something 
different and using a proper approach.
I've deployed from scratch the XCI installer, having as XCI scenario 
os-nosdn-nofeature-noha.

The results of those tests were much better:


  1.  The test scenarios which are related to the healthcheck suite, are run 
properly using the opnfv/functest-healthcheck image (attached logs).
  2.  Whatever I have tried from custom tempest test scenarios which are 
related to the opnfv/functest-smoke image, are run properly (attached logs).

The investigation for the rest categories of test scenarios is in progress.
I have uploaded a patch with the impact on dovetail.
The patch is in progress, nothing stable yet.

[1] XCI scenario = os-odl-sfc-noha and executing the SFC test cases (attached 
email)

Have a nice weekend!
BR
Panos


Panagiotis Karalis
Software Engineer
SDN/NFV Team
__
Intracom Telecom
19.7 km Markopoulou Ave., Peania, GR 19002
t:   +30 2106671499
pkara...@intracom-telecom.com
www.intracom-telecom.com








JOIN US
MWC Shanghai
26-28 June
Shanghai, China

GITEX Technology Week
6-10 October
Dubai, UAE

MWC Los Angeles
22-24 October
Los Angeles, USA

Futurecom
28-31 October
Sao Paulo, Brazil

AfricaCom
12-14 November
Cape Town, South Africa

MWC Barcelona
24-27 February 2020
Barcelona, Spain

The information in this e-mail message and any attachments are intended only 
for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential. 
If you have received this transmission in error, and you are not an intended 
recipient, be aware that any copying, disclosure, distribution or use of this 
transmission or its contents is prohibited. Intracom Telecom and the sender 
accept no liability for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer 
system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this 
email. Views or opinions expressed in this message may be those of the author 
and may not necessarily represent those of Intracom Telecom.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#23272): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23272
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/32159327/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] DOVETAIL + XCI , Running the SFC TCs

[Fatih Degirmenci]

Hi Dan,

We are still working on setting the roadmap for XCI and will come back to
you once we have a consensus around how to move forward with XCI.

/Fatih

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 08:49, xudan  wrote:

> Hi XCI team,
>
>
>
> I’d like to invite you to join Dovetail weekly meeting [1] to give some
> introduction and updates about XCI as we discussed several weeks ago. And
> also Panos can give more details about what he has done.
>
> Please let us know when it’s okay for you.
>
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Dovetail
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan Xu
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Panagiotis Karalis
> *Sent:* Friday, April 19, 2019 11:26 PM
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Cc:* dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org; fatih.degirme...@est.tech
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] DOVETAIL + XCI , Running the SFC TCs
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> After an initiative, I’ve started with a first attempt to introduce the
> XCI in the dovetail and as I promised to David,
>
> I’ m sending you this email with my progress so far.
>
> Specifically, I tried to deployed the dovetail on XCI installer and run
> TCs through dovetail tool.
>
>
>
> XCI details:
>
> -  OS: Ubuntu (check the rest requirements [1])
>
> -  Flavor: mini (for more details [1])
>
> -  Deploy Scenario: os-odl-sfc-noha and follow the rest
> instructions for SFC deployment with XCI [2]
>
> Waiting until  the XCI deployment is completed.
>
>
>
> After that, the dovetail tool installation takes place following  the
> relevant instructions from UG [3] in OPNFV VM of XCI (ssh
> root@192.168.122.2).
>
>
>
> My first action was to verify that the containers which have been
> downloaded via dovetail project were run properly.
>
> So, using the functest-features:gambia container , I was trying to run
> different test scenarios.
>
> At this point, I noticed that the only scenario that was running properly
> (for my configuration setup and environment) was the SFC test cases.
>
>
>
> After that I tried to run the same scenario through dovetail:
>
> -  I prepared a patch in order to trigger this scenario [4].
>
> -  I prepared the env_config.sh and pod.yaml files according to
> the XCI topology and configuration
>
> -  I added in the ‘env_config.sh’ of dovetail the following
> parameters
>
> o   DEPLOY_SCENARIO=os-odl-sfc-noha
>
> o   INSTALLER_TYPE=osa
>
> o   INSTALLER_IP=192.168.122.2
>
> o   EXTERNAL_NETWORK=ext-net
>
>
>
> The result was partially successfully.
>
> The test scenario has been started and the OS components are created
> successfully (like routes, networks  etc).
>
> At the end, I got an error which seems more or less related to my
> environment.
>
> As far as I remember, I got the same error when I tried to run the SFC
> test case directly through functest-features:gambia
>
>
>
> *Another alternative that I tried after the aforementioned results*
>
>
>
> I used the patch [5] changing the relationship between the SFC test cases
> and the XCI installer.
>
> [This patch makes the SFC TCs independently from each installer, so the
> information like the server’s IP is fetched directly from a yaml file that
> prepared by user or by dovetail (the pod.yaml in our case)]  and not by
> installer.
>
>
>
> Using this patch, I have skipped the step to add the above parameters in
> the environment file (env_config.sh), since this information is retrieved
> directly from pod.yaml which is copied in the container from dovetail.
>
>
>
> *BUT the important thing is that the results are much better.*
>
>
>
> The investigation is in progress! J
>
>
>
> Let me know if there are questions / comments about the above steps or
> results.
>
> Moreover, If someone have time to support / contribute this attempt,
> he/she is more than welcome!
>
>
>
> Have a nice weekend!
>
> BR
>
> Panos
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://opnfv-releng-xci.readthedocs.io/en/latest/xci-user-guide.html#xci-user-guide
>
> [2] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/sfc/Deploy+OPNFV+SFC+scenarios
>
> [3]
> https://github.com/opnfv/dovetail/blob/master/docs/testing/user/userguide/testing_guide.rst
>
> [4] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/67615/
>
> [5] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/67492/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Panagiotis Karalis *Software Engineer
>
> SDN/NFV Team
> __
> Intracom Telecom
> 19.7 km Markopoulou Ave., Peania, GR 19002
> t:   +30 2106671499
>
> *pkara...@intracom-telecom.com  *www.
> intracom-telecom.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *JOIN US*
>
> MWC Shanghai
>
> 26-28 June
> Shanghai, China
>
>
>
> GITEX Technology Week
>
> 6-10 October
>
> Dubai, UAE
>
>
>
> MWC Los Angeles
>
> 22-24 October
>
> Los Angeles, USA
>
>
>
> Futurecom
>
> 28-31 October
> Sao Paulo, Brazil
>
>
>
> AfricaCom
>
> 12-14 November
> Cape Town, South Africa
>
>
>
> MWC Barcelona
>
> 24-27 February 2020
>
> Barcelona, Spain
>
>
>
> The 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] DOVETAIL + XCI , Running the SFC TCs

[xudan]

Hi XCI team,

I'd like to invite you to join Dovetail weekly meeting [1] to give some 
introduction and updates about XCI as we discussed several weeks ago. And also 
Panos can give more details about what he has done.
Please let us know when it's okay for you.

[1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Dovetail

Thanks,
Dan Xu

From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Panagiotis Karalis
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 11:26 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org; fatih.degirme...@est.tech
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] DOVETAIL + XCI , Running the SFC TCs

Hi all,

After an initiative, I've started with a first attempt to introduce the XCI in 
the dovetail and as I promised to David,
I' m sending you this email with my progress so far.
Specifically, I tried to deployed the dovetail on XCI installer and run TCs 
through dovetail tool.

XCI details:

-  OS: Ubuntu (check the rest requirements [1])

-  Flavor: mini (for more details [1])

-  Deploy Scenario: os-odl-sfc-noha and follow the rest instructions 
for SFC deployment with XCI [2]
Waiting until  the XCI deployment is completed.

After that, the dovetail tool installation takes place following  the relevant 
instructions from UG [3] in OPNFV VM of XCI (ssh 
root@192.168.122.2).

My first action was to verify that the containers which have been downloaded 
via dovetail project were run properly.
So, using the functest-features:gambia container , I was trying to run 
different test scenarios.
At this point, I noticed that the only scenario that was running properly (for 
my configuration setup and environment) was the SFC test cases.

After that I tried to run the same scenario through dovetail:

-  I prepared a patch in order to trigger this scenario [4].

-  I prepared the env_config.sh and pod.yaml files according to the XCI 
topology and configuration

-  I added in the 'env_config.sh' of dovetail the following parameters

o   DEPLOY_SCENARIO=os-odl-sfc-noha

o   INSTALLER_TYPE=osa

o   INSTALLER_IP=192.168.122.2

o   EXTERNAL_NETWORK=ext-net

The result was partially successfully.
The test scenario has been started and the OS components are created 
successfully (like routes, networks  etc).
At the end, I got an error which seems more or less related to my environment.
As far as I remember, I got the same error when I tried to run the SFC test 
case directly through functest-features:gambia

Another alternative that I tried after the aforementioned results

I used the patch [5] changing the relationship between the SFC test cases and 
the XCI installer.
[This patch makes the SFC TCs independently from each installer, so the 
information like the server's IP is fetched directly from a yaml file that 
prepared by user or by dovetail (the pod.yaml in our case)]  and not by 
installer.

Using this patch, I have skipped the step to add the above parameters in the 
environment file (env_config.sh), since this information is retrieved directly 
from pod.yaml which is copied in the container from dovetail.

BUT the important thing is that the results are much better.

The investigation is in progress! :)

Let me know if there are questions / comments about the above steps or results.
Moreover, If someone have time to support / contribute this attempt, he/she is 
more than welcome!

Have a nice weekend!
BR
Panos

[1] 
https://opnfv-releng-xci.readthedocs.io/en/latest/xci-user-guide.html#xci-user-guide
[2] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/sfc/Deploy+OPNFV+SFC+scenarios
[3] 
https://github.com/opnfv/dovetail/blob/master/docs/testing/user/userguide/testing_guide.rst
[4] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/67615/
[5] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/67492/



Panagiotis Karalis
Software Engineer
SDN/NFV Team
__
Intracom Telecom
19.7 km Markopoulou Ave., Peania, GR 19002
t:   +30 2106671499
pkara...@intracom-telecom.com
www.intracom-telecom.com















JOIN US

MWC Shanghai
26-28 June
Shanghai, China


GITEX Technology Week
6-10 October
Dubai, UAE


MWC Los Angeles
22-24 October
Los Angeles, USA


Futurecom
28-31 October
Sao Paulo, Brazil


AfricaCom
12-14 November
Cape Town, South Africa


MWC Barcelona
24-27 February 2020
Barcelona, Spain


The information in this e-mail message and any attachments are intended only 
for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential. 
If you have received this transmission in error, and you are not an intended 
recipient, be aware that any copying, disclosure, distribution or use of this 
transmission or its contents is prohibited. Intracom Telecom and the sender 
accept no liability for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer 
system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item from Developer Event

[Kanagaraj Manickam]

Hi Trevor,

During Casablanca release, In VTP, we introduced test cases for validating the 
give VNF CSAR file weather it complaint to ETSI SOL004 and it produce the 
results with following details:

1.   Passed/failed

2.   Error details.

Current result format is:
{
"results" : [ {
"error" : "SUCCESS"
} ],
"build_tag" : "CVC",
"criteria" : "PASS"
}
}

So this would help to verify weather given CSAR is compliant and if not, to let 
user knows the errors in the CSAR. Also we are enhancing this result with 
following details as its required for CVC

1.   VNF is TOSCA or HOT based

2.   VNF Template version

I believe similar approach could be followed for validating the HOT VNF as 
well. In this aspect, could you please help to find answers for following 
queries, which would help to integrate VVP scripts in VTP as validation test 
case, as discussed in the PARIS CVC meeting last week:

1.   As we knew, ONAP Vendor Software Product (VSP) is zip containing the 
required HOT template with MANIFEST.json, Is VVP script validate this VSP as a 
whole including this MANIFEST.json or it only validates the HOT templates 
inside the VSP ?

2.   As VNFREQS defines list of HOT template requirements with MUST and 
MUST NOT criteria,

a.   How to validate given VSP against only MUST VNFREQS by using 
https://github.com/onap/vvp-validation-scripts ?

b.  How to validate given VSP for a given set of VNFREQS by using these 
validation scripts

NOTE: Here Assuming VVP scripts supports VSP as whole.

3.   What are the versions of OpenStack HOT template 
(heat_template_version), VVP scripts support?

I assume that we need to introduce an wrapper test case over VVP scripts, which 
will run the VVP scripts  and produce the result in the form  as required by 
the OVP portal/ Dovetail. Pls let me know your inputs.

Thank you.

Regards
Kanagaraj Manickam
Senior System Architect
P ONAP
Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield
Bengaluru-560066, Karnataka
Tel: + 91-80-49160700 ext 72410 Mob: 9945602938
[Company_logo]


This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, 
which
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any 
use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total 
or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify 
the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it!

From: xudan (N)
Sent: 16 January 2019 12:14
To: LOVETT, TREVOR J ; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: STARK, STEVEN ; WRIGHT, STEVEN A ; 
HALLAHAN, RYAN ; WEINSTOCK, ALAN M ; Gaoweitao 
(Victor, Cloudify Network OSDT) ; Kanagaraj Manickam 
; mok...@intracom-telecom.com; 
pkara...@intracom-telecom.com
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item 
from Developer Event

Hi all,

The results looks very friendly for users to debugging. But it will be better 
if there is an explicit  value to show if it PASS or FAIL.
The results seems to be running one or several test cases against several VNFs, 
but it's difficult to find out the test case details (how many test cases there 
are and the results of each of them).
When doing the compliance tests, it always tests a set of chosen test cases 
against one single VNF. And it should report that which test cases PASS and 
which FAIL (better with the failure reason for debugging).
Please take these under consideration when VTP integrates these test cases.

BR,
Dan Xu

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of LOVETT, TREVOR J
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 12:18 AM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Cc: STARK, STEVEN mailto:ss8...@att.com>>; WRIGHT, STEVEN A 
mailto:sw3...@att.com>>; HALLAHAN, RYAN 
mailto:rh1...@att.com>>; WEINSTOCK, ALAN M 
mailto:aw2...@att.com>>; Gaoweitao (Victor, Cloudify Network 
OSDT) mailto:victor@huawei.com>>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item 
from Developer Event

Per an action item out of the developer event in France, the ONAP VVP team is 
providing a sample of what the default output of the vvp/validation-scripts 
produce.  This can be examined by the Dovetail team to determine if it can be 
consumed for the purpose of the LFN certification of Heat templates.

The scripts can produce several different output formats, but I'm using the CSV 
output format as it's the most machine readable.  There are also HTML and Excel 
output formats.  It's fairly trivial to add additional output formats so if 
there's a

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item from Developer Event

[LOVETT, TREVOR J]

See below...





From: "xudan (N)" mailto:xuda...@huawei.com>>
Date: Monday, January 21, 2019 at 1:19:22 AM
To: "LOVETT, TREVOR J" mailto:tl2...@att.com>>, "Kanagaraj 
Manickam" 
mailto:kanagaraj.manic...@huawei.com>>, 
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>" 
mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Cc: "STARK, STEVEN" mailto:ss8...@att.com>>, "WRIGHT, STEVEN A" 
mailto:sw3...@att.com>>, "HALLAHAN, RYAN" 
mailto:rh1...@att.com>>, "WEINSTOCK, ALAN M" 
mailto:aw2...@att.com>>, "Gaoweitao (Victor, Cloudify Network 
OSDT)" mailto:victor@huawei.com>>, 
"mok...@intracom-telecom.com<mailto:mok...@intracom-telecom.com>" 
mailto:mok...@intracom-telecom.com>>, 
"pkara...@intracom-telecom.com<mailto:pkara...@intracom-telecom.com>" 
mailto:pkara...@intracom-telecom.com>>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item 
from Developer Event

>
> Hi Trevor,
>
>
> The results format looks much better and clearer. I have some further 
> questions about the results.
>
> 1. The ‘result’ of each test case could be PASS/FAIL/SKIP. In which case one 
> test case will SKIP?
>
[Trevor] details are I. The docs I linked to, but this essentially the test is 
not applicable due to the template contents (ex: the requirement is about 
neutron ports but the template doesn’t have neutron ports)

> 2. For some test cases, there are ‘requirements’ which has 3 keys ‘id’, 
> ‘text’ and ‘keyword’. Also there are some test cases with empty 
> ‘requirements’ (Line 915). Why they are empty without ‘id’, ‘text’ and 
> ‘keyword’?

[Trevor] there are a few areas where the tests need to be synced up with the 
latest requirement changes. In these instances the requirement has been 
deleted, but the test hasn’t been updated yet. We will be making those updates 
this week.

> 3. From Line 10539 to the end, there is another different kind of data 
> format. Why there are 2 totally different data formats?

Please refer to the documentation. (See Requirement Result)

> 4. The ‘outcome’ should be the final result of all test cases. How to get the 
> outcome? It will be PASS if there is not any FAIL test cases or not any 
> FAIL/SKIP test cases?

At the header level there is one field that summarizes the overall result into 
PASS, FAIL, ERROR see Header/ Top Level section of the docs.


> Anyway, the results format is sufficient for both Dovetail tool and web 
> portal.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
> From: LOVETT, TREVOR J [mailto:tl2...@att.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 12:41 PM
> To: Kanagaraj Manickam 
> mailto:kanagaraj.manic...@huawei.com>>; xudan 
> (N) mailto:xuda...@huawei.com>>; 
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> Cc: STARK, STEVEN mailto:ss8...@att.com>>; WRIGHT, STEVEN A 
> mailto:sw3...@att.com>>; HALLAHAN, RYAN 
> mailto:rh1...@att.com>>; WEINSTOCK, ALAN M 
> mailto:aw2...@att.com>>; Gaoweitao (Victor, Cloudify Network 
> OSDT) mailto:victor@huawei.com>>; 
> mok...@intracom-telecom.com<mailto:mok...@intracom-telecom.com>; 
> pkara...@intracom-telecom.com<mailto:pkara...@intracom-telecom.com>
> Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action 
> Item from Developer Event
>
>
> It still needs to be merged with master, but I’ve submitted a change to the 
> validation-scripts that has a more comprehensive output.
>
>
> For more details, please see the file format specification 
> here:https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Updated+JSON+Report+Output+for+Validation+Scripts
>
>
> I’ve attached a sample file here as well.
>
>
> I’ve also added a new option to the command line to direct output to a new 
> directory ( --output-directory)
>
>
> The failures file still exists and con continue to be used if needed, but I 
> would recommend the new file (report.json).
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Trevor
>
>
> From: Kanagaraj Manickam [mailto:kanagaraj.manic...@huawei.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 2:43 AM
> To: LOVETT, TREVOR J mailto:tl2...@att.com>>; xudan (N) 
> mailto:xuda...@huawei.com>>;opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> Cc: STARK, STEVEN mailto:ss8...@att.com>>; WRIGHT, STEVEN A 
> mailto:sw3...@att.com>>; HALLAHAN, RYAN 
> mailto:rh1...@att.com>>; WEINSTOCK, ALAN M 
> mailto:aw2...@att.com>>; Gaoweitao (Victor, Cloudify Network 
> OSDT) 
> mailto:victor@huawei.com>>;mok...@intra

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item from Developer Event

[LOVETT, TREVOR J]

Here are the answers to your questions...


1.   As we knew, ONAP Vendor Software Product (VSP) is zip containing the 
required HOT template with MANIFEST.json, Is VVP script validate this VSP as a 
whole including this MANIFEST.json or it only validates the HOT templates 
inside the VSP



[Trevor] For a VNF created from Heat, the VSP is an artifact created in SDC 
itself so we are not uploading a VSP nor verifying the VSP as a whole - only 
the Heat.  The Heat Orchestration Template package is a zip file with all files 
(Heat templates, environment files, and any supporting files/scripts) in the 
root directory of that zip file.  This is what is uploaded into SDC.  There is 
no MANIFEST.json file included per the Heat requirements.



2.   As VNFREQS defines list of HOT template requirements with MUST and 
MUST NOT criteria,

a.   How to validate given VSP against only MUST VNFREQS by using 
https://github.com/onap/vvp-validation-scripts<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_onap_vvp-2Dvalidation-2Dscripts=DwMFAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=g9LhwjMTPM4AuoWvYyDmqA=X4a0XtgdvP5oIyxMXai6-iRAyDMRQnPHPkOjP0zP0so=xnL_aohPfyvDzBrOb3eDAjhbE9zNV98FEg9kkY7iObI=>
 ?


[Trevor] The validation scripts already only validate MUST and MUST NOT 
requirements - not SHOULD and MAY.  If you're suggesting we need a way to 
filter further on testing just MUST and not MUST NOTS, please elaborate on why 
you think that is necessary and provide an example.  All the tests in the 
validation-scripts section must execute and pass for Heat to be considered 
valid.


b.  How to validate given VSP for a given set of VNFREQS by using these 
validation scripts

NOTE: Here Assuming VVP scripts supports VSP as whole.



[Trevor]  Please provide an example or use case of what you mean here.  The 
validation-scripts only validate the Heat requirements.  The validations 
already bypass checks that are not necessary based on conditions.  Why would 
you need further filtering of the execution?



3.   What are the versions of OpenStack HOT template 
(heat_template_version), VVP scripts support?



a.   [Trevor]  There are no restrictions placed on heat_template_version in 
the validation-scripts directly as the version of Open Stack is somewhat 
operator-specific.  The validation-scripts support versions as early as 
2013-05-23, but we haven't extensively tested it against all versions.

I don't have any issue with you all writing a wrapper.  You can either take the 
output files we documented and convert the results to a compatible format or we 
can add an additional output format for consumption by Dovetail/OVP.  If you 
would like us to produce an additional output format, then I would need some 
additional detail on the format described in your email.  It's relatively 
trivial to create a new output format.

{
"results" : [ {
"error" : "SUCCESS"
} ],
"build_tag" : "CVC",
"criteria" : "PASS"
}
}


* In "results", is there one entry per validation?

* In "results", what does it look like if there's a failure?

* In "results", are there any restrictions on length or formatting of 
the error messages?  Some of the VVP information is multi-line.

* What does "build_tag" represent?

* What does "criteria" refer to?  Is it the overall result of the 
validation?  If so, what are the valid values?

Thanks,
Trevor


From: Kanagaraj Manickam [mailto:kanagaraj.manic...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 3:10 AM
To: xudan (N) ; LOVETT, TREVOR J ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: STARK, STEVEN ; WRIGHT, STEVEN A ; 
HALLAHAN, RYAN ; WEINSTOCK, ALAN M ; Gaoweitao 
(Victor, Cloudify Network OSDT) ; 
mok...@intracom-telecom.com; pkara...@intracom-telecom.com
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item 
from Developer Event

Hi Trevor,

During Casablanca release, In VTP, we introduced test cases for validating the 
give VNF CSAR file weather it complaint to ETSI SOL004 and it produce the 
results with following details:

1.   Passed/failed

2.   Error details.

Current result format is:
{
"results" : [ {
"error" : "SUCCESS"
} ],
"build_tag" : "CVC",
"criteria" : "PASS"
}
}

So this would help to verify weather given CSAR is compliant and if not, to let 
user knows the errors in the CSAR. Also we are enhancing this result with 
following details as its required for CVC

1.   VNF is TOSCA or HOT based

2.   VNF Template version

I believe similar approach could be followed for validating the HOT VNF as 
well. In this aspect, could you please help to find answers for following 
queries, which would help to integrate VVP scripts in VTP as validation test 
case, as discussed in the PARIS CVC meeting last week

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item from Developer Event

[xudan]

Hi Trevor,

The results format looks much better and clearer. I have some further questions 
about the results.

1.   The 'result' of each test case could be PASS/FAIL/SKIP. In which case 
one test case will SKIP?

2.   For some test cases, there are 'requirements' which has 3 keys 'id', 
'text' and 'keyword'. Also there are some test cases with empty 'requirements' 
(Line 915). Why they are empty without 'id', 'text' and 'keyword'?

3.   From Line 10539 to the end, there is another different kind of data 
format. Why there are 2 totally different data formats?

4.   The 'outcome' should be the final result of all test cases. How to get 
the outcome? It will be PASS if there is not any FAIL test cases or not any 
FAIL/SKIP test cases?

Anyway, the results format is sufficient for both Dovetail tool and web portal.

Regards,
Dan

From: LOVETT, TREVOR J [mailto:tl2...@att.com]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 12:41 PM
To: Kanagaraj Manickam ; xudan (N) 
; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: STARK, STEVEN ; WRIGHT, STEVEN A ; 
HALLAHAN, RYAN ; WEINSTOCK, ALAN M ; Gaoweitao 
(Victor, Cloudify Network OSDT) ; 
mok...@intracom-telecom.com; pkara...@intracom-telecom.com
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item 
from Developer Event

It still needs to be merged with master, but I've submitted a change to the 
validation-scripts that has a more comprehensive output.

For more details, please see the file format specification here: 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Updated+JSON+Report+Output+for+Validation+Scripts

I've attached a sample file here as well.

I've also added a new option to the command line to direct output to a new 
directory ( --output-directory)

The failures file still exists and con continue to be used if needed, but I 
would recommend the new file (report.json).

Thanks,
Trevor

From: Kanagaraj Manickam [mailto:kanagaraj.manic...@huawei.com]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 2:43 AM
To: LOVETT, TREVOR J mailto:tl2...@att.com>>; xudan (N) 
mailto:xuda...@huawei.com>>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Cc: STARK, STEVEN mailto:ss8...@att.com>>; WRIGHT, STEVEN A 
mailto:sw3...@att.com>>; HALLAHAN, RYAN 
mailto:rh1...@att.com>>; WEINSTOCK, ALAN M 
mailto:aw2...@att.com>>; Gaoweitao (Victor, Cloudify Network 
OSDT) mailto:victor@huawei.com>>; 
mok...@intracom-telecom.com<mailto:mok...@intracom-telecom.com>; 
pkara...@intracom-telecom.com<mailto:pkara...@intracom-telecom.com>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item 
from Developer Event

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for the inputs.

I have integrated the VVP scripts in VTP and tested the results and needs to be 
refined further.
Please find more details in-line response below.

Thanks.

Regards,
Kanagaraj Manickam
Senior System Architect
P ONAP
Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield
Bengaluru-560066, Karnataka
Tel: + 91-80-49160700 ext 72410 Mob: 9945602938
[Company_logo]


This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, 
which
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any 
use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total 
or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify 
the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it!

From: LOVETT, TREVOR J [mailto:tl2...@att.com]
Sent: 16 January 2019 21:49
To: Kanagaraj Manickam 
mailto:kanagaraj.manic...@huawei.com>>; xudan 
(N) mailto:xuda...@huawei.com>>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Cc: STARK, STEVEN mailto:ss8...@att.com>>; WRIGHT, STEVEN A 
mailto:sw3...@att.com>>; HALLAHAN, RYAN 
mailto:rh1...@att.com>>; WEINSTOCK, ALAN M 
mailto:aw2...@att.com>>; Gaoweitao (Victor, Cloudify Network 
OSDT) mailto:victor@huawei.com>>; 
mok...@intracom-telecom.com<mailto:mok...@intracom-telecom.com>; 
pkara...@intracom-telecom.com<mailto:pkara...@intracom-telecom.com>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item 
from Developer Event

Here are the answers to your questions...


1.  As we knew, ONAP Vendor Software Product (VSP) is zip containing the 
required HOT template with MANIFEST.json, Is VVP script validate this VSP as a 
whole including this MANIFEST.json or it only validates the HOT templates 
inside the VSP



[Trevor] For a VNF created from Heat, the VSP is an artifact created in SDC 
itself so we are not uploading a VSP nor verifying the VSP as a whole - only 
the Heat.  The Heat Orchestration Template package is a zip file with all files 
(Heat templates, environm

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item from Developer Event

[xudan]

Hi all,

The results looks very friendly for users to debugging. But it will be better 
if there is an explicit  value to show if it PASS or FAIL.
The results seems to be running one or several test cases against several VNFs, 
but it's difficult to find out the test case details (how many test cases there 
are and the results of each of them).
When doing the compliance tests, it always tests a set of chosen test cases 
against one single VNF. And it should report that which test cases PASS and 
which FAIL (better with the failure reason for debugging).
Please take these under consideration when VTP integrates these test cases.

BR,
Dan Xu

From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of LOVETT, TREVOR J
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 12:18 AM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: STARK, STEVEN ; WRIGHT, STEVEN A ; 
HALLAHAN, RYAN ; WEINSTOCK, ALAN M ; Gaoweitao 
(Victor, Cloudify Network OSDT) 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Example VVP Output per Action Item 
from Developer Event

Per an action item out of the developer event in France, the ONAP VVP team is 
providing a sample of what the default output of the vvp/validation-scripts 
produce.  This can be examined by the Dovetail team to determine if it can be 
consumed for the purpose of the LFN certification of Heat templates.

The scripts can produce several different output formats, but I'm using the CSV 
output format as it's the most machine readable.  There are also HTML and Excel 
output formats.  It's fairly trivial to add additional output formats so if 
there's an existing format that dovetail can consume, please provide the 
details and we can create that format if needed.

The sample_template_with_errors.zip contains the Heat template files that 
produced these reports.

Upon completion of a validation run, several files will be written to the 
outputs folder.  The two key files are:


* failures - This file contains information on the failures in JSON 
format.  This file will not be present if no requirement violations are 
detected.

* report.csv - Similar content to failures, but in CSV format and it 
also includes some additional data in a header section.  This file will be 
present even if violations are not detected, but it will not have rows error 
section of the report.

I've attached samples of both files in this email.  I've also attached a copy 
of what the report.csv looks like when there are no errors (see report - 
SUCCESS.csv)

The format of the files is fairly straight forward, but here's some additional 
documentation of the fields in the file:

report.csv file


* Header - The first 9 rows of the csv file represent a header section 
that provides the following information

o   Row 1 - Static report header: "Validation Failures"

o   Row 2  - Blank

o   Row 3 - Profile Selected: Always ONAP

o   Row 4 - Tool Version: Semantic version ID Of the tool that produced the 
report

o   Row 5 - Report Generated At: Date and Time Stamp of when the report was 
generated (ex: 2018-12-18 12:34:19.064412 Eastern Standard Time)

o   Row 6 - Directory Validated: Shows the local, absolute directory that was 
scanned

o   Row 7 - Checksum: MD5 hash of all files in the directory that was scanned

o   Row 8 - Total Errors: The count of all errors encountered

o   Row 9 - Blank



* Collection Failures - In the unlikely event there is setting up the 
test suite to run, then an optional section of the report will be written 
describing these errors.  There will be 2 header rows, and then 1 row for each 
setup failure encountered.  It is possible to have both collection failures and 
validation failures as the validation-scripts will execute any tests that did 
not fail setup.  However, if this section exists it represents an unexpected 
error and invalid run of the tool.  These issues should be referred to the VVP 
team for investigation.

o   Row 10 (if these errors are encountered): Start of Collection Failures will 
be denoted by a row containing "WARNING: The following unexpected errors..." in 
the first column of the row.

o   Row 11 (if these errors are encountered): Collection Failure heading 
columns: "Validation File", "Test", "Fixtures", "Error"

o   Row 12-N (if these errors are encountered): Rows for each error.  Each 
column is a string.


* Validation Failures (Note the start row depends on whether or not 
collection failures are encountered)

o   Start of report  - Static Report Header denoting the start of the 
individual errors.  Always "Validation Failures"

o   Error Report Column Headings - "Input File", "Test", "Requirements", 
"Resolution Steps", "Error Message", "Raw Test Output"

o   Following the heading -  0 or more individual error rows for each violation 
found



Column


Description


Format


Required/Optional


Notes


Input File


List of files the error was detected in


Semicolon delimited list


Required

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] dovetail setup query

[xudan]

Hi Beerappa,

Thanks for your interest in Dovetail and OVP and beginning to test in your lab.

The question you mentioned seems to be that Dovetail couldn’t get the external 
network.
Could you please offer more info:

1.  Which script saying the exception, the details of the exception?

2.  Do you set the EXTERNAL_NETWORK in the ‘env_config.sh’ file?

3.  Could you help to use command ‘openstack network show xxx’ to check the 
details of this external network within Dovetail containers.

For Dovetail, there should be a network whose attribute 
router:external=External. This network will be used by all servers created to 
assign floating ips.

Regards,
Dan Xu

From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Beeresh M
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 9:17 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] dovetail setup query

Hi Team,
This query regarding the setup of dovetail in our lab.  we are facing issues 
while running the test cases, its failing at one of the python scripts saying 
expecting   router:external =True but in our lab the external network which we 
are using is having the value for the filed router:external= External .
we are unable to modify the above mentioned field in openstack(OCATA). is there 
any work around ? as we are not able to execute the test cases.

PFB the link which we referred for the setup:

https://docs.opnfv.org/en/stable-fraser/submodules/dovetail/docs/testing/user/userguide/testing_guide.html

PFB the section which we have mentioned about  field export EXTERNAL_NETWORK=xxx
6.1.2.4. Setting up Primary Configuration File

please let me know if any more information is required.

Thanks and Regards,
Beerappa
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#22164): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22164
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/27326599/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss][dovetail]

[xudan]

Hi all,

In order to avoid the misunderstanding, here is a tiny reminder.
It’s ok to work with no DOVETAIL_HOME in env_config.sh because this env is set 
at the very beginning when creating the Dovetail Container.

Cheers,
Xudan

From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of SerenaFeng(zte)
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:55 AM
To: dimitris.tsiolakis 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss][dovetail]

Hi Dimitris,

First of all, thanks for your interest in Dovetail.

After looking at the failure information, I think the problem is because 
192.168.37.205 is not accessible from functest-smoke container. I assume it is 
the public or admin network, and the link from testing containers to OpenStack 
via public & admin network plane are required by some testcases.

2018-08-16 10:13:35,982 - functest.core.singlevm - ERROR - cannot connect to 
192.168.37.205

And after looking at env_config.sh, I think DOVETAIL_HOME env variable is 
missing, I remember it is also required to be set in env_config.sh

To make the problem shooting easier and faster, I would suggest to running in 
'debug' mode, which is add '-d' flag when starting the tests, such as 'dovetail 
run --testsuite ovp.next -d'

Regarding the hosts.yaml, if there are some domains need to be parsed during 
the testing, they are defined in this file, it will finally be parsed and put 
into /etc/hosts in the testing container. You can reference the 
hosts.yaml.sample for the schema.

for example if the following information is defined in hosts.yaml
hosts_info:
192.168.141.101:
- admin_ip
- public_ip
then in /etc/hosts of the testing container, the following line will be added.
192.168.141.101 admin_ip public_ip

Hope these information will help you~


BRs
Serena
[图像已被发件人删除。]






On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 3:39 PM, dimitris.tsiolakis 
d...@intracom-telecom.com<mailto:d...@intracom-telecom.com> wrote:

Hi Dovetailers,



I’m new at the dovetail I’m trying to run dovetail test  cases following the 
latest instruction from testing_guide.rst  
(https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/60823/).



I created all mandatory files:

-env_config.sh, ( this is mine looks like 
http://paste.openstack.org/show/728164/)

-tempest_conf.yaml (same as the sample)

-   pod.yaml  ( https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/883N3Cmrx4/ I also use password 
instead of id_rsa)

-   (I did not create the hosts.yaml since it is optional.)



When I run “dovetail run” test fails ( logs can be found here 
http://paste.openstack.org/show/728169/ )



I seems that the pod.yaml file is not correct and it cannot read the SUT info 
but I cannot  Understand what is wrong.

Also the absence of hosts.yaml  file is raising a warning what is this file and 
how should I update it?



Can you help me with the configuration and the execution?



Thank you in advance



Dimitris Tsiolakis

SDN NFV Thessaloniki

_
Intracom Telecom
Marinou Antipa 41, Pilea-Thessaloniki,GR 57001
t:   +30 2310497389
f:   +30 2310497330

d...@intracom-telecom.com<mailto:d...@intracom-telecom.com>

www.intracom-telecom.com<http://www.intracom-telecom.com/>
























JOIN US


Mobile World Congress Americas

12-14 September
Los Angeles, USA




Gitex Technology Week

14-18 October
Dubai, UAE




FutureCom

15-18 October

Sao Paulo, Brazil




AfricaCom

13-15 November

Cape Town, S. Africa




Mobile World Congress

25-28 February 2019

Barcelona, Spain




Mobile World Congress Shanghai

26-28 June 2019
Shanghai, China




The information in this e-mail message and any attachments are intended only 
for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential. 
If you have received this transmission in error, and you are not an intended 
recipient, be aware that any copying, disclosure, distribution or use of this 
transmission or its contents is prohibited. Intracom Telecom and the sender 
accept no liability for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer 
system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this 
email. Views or opinions expressed in this message may be those of the author 
and may not necessarily represent those of Intracom Telecom.






-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#21802): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21802
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/24610481/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss][dovetail]

[SerenaFeng(zte)]

Hi Dimitris,
First of all, thanks for your interest in Dovetail.
After looking at the failure information, I think the problem is because
192.168.37.205 is not accessible from functest-smoke container. I assume it is
the public or admin network, and the link from testing containers to OpenStack
via public & admin network plane are required by some testcases.
2018-08-16 10:13:35,982 - functest.core.singlevm - ERROR - cannot connect to
192.168.37.205
And after looking at env_config.sh, I think DOVETAIL_HOME env variable is
missing, I remember it is also required to be set in env_config.sh
To make the problem shooting easier and faster, I would suggest to running in
'debug' mode, which is add '-d' flag when starting the tests, such as 'dovetail
run --testsuite ovp.next -d'
Regarding the hosts.yaml, if there are some domains need to be parsed during the
testing, they are defined in this file, it will finally be parsed and put
into /etc/hosts in the testing container. You can reference the
hosts.yaml.sample for the schema.
for example if the following information is defined in hosts.yamlhosts_info:   
192.168.141.101:        - admin_ip        - public_ipthen in /etc/hosts of the
testing container, the following line will be added.    192.168.141.101 admin_ip
public_ip
Hope these information will help you~

BRsSerena





On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 3:39 PM, dimitris.tsiolakis d...@intracom-telecom.com 
wrote:
Hi Dovetailers,



I’m new at the dovetail I’m trying to run dovetail test  cases following the
latest instruction from testing_guide.rst  (
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/60823/).



I created all mandatory files:

-    env_config.sh, ( this is mine looks like
http://paste.openstack.org/show/728164/) 

-    tempest_conf.yaml (same as the sample)

-   pod.yaml( https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/883N3Cmrx4/  I also use password
instead of id_rsa)

-   (I did not create the hosts.yaml since it is optional.)



When I run “dovetail run” test fails ( logs can be found here 
http://paste.openstack.org/show/728169/  )



I seems that the pod.yaml file is not correct and it cannot read the SUT info
but I cannot  Understand what is wrong.

Also the absence of hosts.yaml  file is raising a warning what is this file and
how should I update it?



Can you help me with the configuration and the execution?



Thank you in advance



Dimitris Tsiolakis

SDN  NFV Thessaloniki

_
Intracom Telecom
Marinou Antipa 41, Pilea-Thessaloniki,GR 57001
t:   +30 2310497389
f:   +30 2310497330

d...@intracom-telecom.com

www.intracom-telecom.com

















JOIN US

Mobile World Congress Americas

12-14 September
Los Angeles, USA



Gitex Technology Week

14-18 October
Dubai, UAE



FutureCom

15-18 October

Sao Paulo, Brazil



AfricaCom

13-15 November

Cape Town, S. Africa



Mobile World Congress

25-28 February 2019

Barcelona, Spain



Mobile World Congress Shanghai

26-28 June 2019
Shanghai, China



The information in this e-mail message and any attachments are intended only for
the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential. If you
have received this transmission in error, and you are not an intended recipient,
be aware that any copying, disclosure, distribution or use of this transmission
or its contents is prohibited. Intracom Telecom and the sender accept no
liability for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system
that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this email.
Views or opinions expressed in this message may be those of the author and may
not necessarily represent those of Intracom Telecom.






-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#21801): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21801
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/24610481/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss][dovetail] Dovetail testing configuration

[xudan]

Hi Dimitris and Louie,

Thanks Louie for the reply. From my side, they are very helpful. I always do 
like that to figure out the problems.

Also here are some further tips.

1.  The user ‘admin’ in the pod.yaml for each node should have the sudo 
privilege with NOPASSWD mode.

2.  There need to update all docker images to the latest one especially for 
Functest (opnfv/functest-smoke:fraser) which fixed some bugs on vping.

3.  The External_Network ‘external’ given in env_config.sh should be 
external(router:External = True), otherwise Functest will ignore it and have no 
network to get floating ip for vping_ssh.

4.  Suggest to use –debug mode when running Dovetail to get more info.
Thanks,
Xudan

From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of louie long
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 6:40 PM
To: dimitris.tsiolakis ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss][dovetail] Dovetail testing configuration


 Hi，

 For your cann't get pod info you can try “ansible all -m setup -i 
 --tree ” [1], and check if this 
command can run success(you should replace the inventory.ini to a absolute file 
path).

 As for the hosts.yaml warning it doesn't impact you test, if you want to 
understand this file please read section "Configuration of Hosts File" in [2]

 Finally, I cann't find the reason why you run failed, the log shows dovetail 
cann't connect to the vping vm from "192.168.37.205", you can try run
"dovetail run -d -n --offline --testcase functest.vping.ssh"（I am not sure 
which dovetail version you run，maybe you can run dovetail list to find the  
most similar to xx.vping.ssh）. At the same time when you run this command you 
can try to ssh login the vping VM to check whether the floating IP can work. If 
this still failed please paste your external network info like this "openstack 
show external".


[1]https://github.com/opnfv/dovetail/blob/master/dovetail/utils/dovetail_utils.py#L198-L200
[2]https://github.com/opnfv/dovetail/blob/master/docs/testing/user/userguide/testing_guide.rst


--
Louie Long
 E-mail: yl...@biigroup.cn<mailto:xdzh...@biigroup.cn>
 Mobile: +86 13261979365
Fax: 86-10-5867-8466
Postcode：10
Add: 2nd Floor, Building 5, No.58 Jinghai Road, BDA, Beijing, China
Website: www.biigroup.com<http://www.biigroup.com/>  
www.cfiec.net<http://www.cfiec.net/>



-- Original --
From:  
"dimitris.tsiolakis"mailto:d...@intracom-telecom.com>>;
Date:  Fri, Aug 17, 2018 03:45 PM
To:  
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>"mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>;
Subject:  [opnfv-tech-discuss][dovetail] Dovetail testing configuration

Hi Dovetailers,

I’m new at the dovetail I’m trying to run dovetail test  cases following the 
latest instruction from testing_guide.rst  
(https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/60823/).

I created all mandatory files:

-env_config.sh, ( this is mine looks like 
http://paste.openstack.org/show/728164/)

-tempest_conf.yaml (same as the sample)

-   pod.yaml  ( https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/883N3Cmrx4/ I also use password 
instead of id_rsa)

-   (I did not create the hosts.yaml since it is optional.)

When I run “dovetail run” test fails ( logs can be found here 
http://paste.openstack.org/show/728169/ )

I seems that the pod.yaml file is not correct and it cannot read the SUT info 
but I cannot  Understand what is wrong.
Also the absence of hosts.yaml  file is raising a warning what is this file and 
how should I update it?

Can you help me with the configuration and the execution?

Thank you in advance

Dimitris Tsiolakis
SDN NFV Thessaloniki
_
Intracom Telecom
Marinou Antipa 41, Pilea-Thessaloniki,GR 57001
t:   +30 2310497389
f:   +30 2310497330
d...@intracom-telecom.com<mailto:d...@intracom-telecom.com>
www.intracom-telecom.com<http://www.intracom-telecom.com/>















JOIN US

Mobile World Congress Americas
12-14 September
Los Angeles, USA


Gitex Technology Week
14-18 October
Dubai, UAE


FutureCom
15-18 October
Sao Paulo, Brazil


AfricaCom
13-15 November
Cape Town, S. Africa


Mobile World Congress
25-28 February 2019
Barcelona, Spain


Mobile World Congress Shanghai
26-28 June 2019
Shanghai, China


The information in this e-mail message and any attachments are intended only 
for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential. 
If you have received this transmission in error, and you are not an intended 
recipient, be aware that any copying, disclosure, distribution or use of this 
transmission or its contents is prohibited. Intracom Telecom and the sender 
accept no liability for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer 
system that may occur while using data contained in, or tr

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss][dovetail] Dovetail testing configuration

[louie long]

Hi，


 For your cann't get pod info you can try “ansible all -m setup -i 
 --tree ” [1], and check if this 
command can run success(you should replace the inventory.ini to a absolute file 
path).


 As for the hosts.yaml warning it doesn't impact you test, if you want to 
understand this file please read section "Configuration of Hosts File" in [2]



 Finally, I cann't find the reason why you run failed, the log shows dovetail 
cann't connect to the vping vm from "192.168.37.205", you can try run 

"dovetail run -d -n --offline --testcase functest.vping.ssh"（I am not sure 
which dovetail version you run，maybe you can run dovetail list to find the  
most similar to xx.vping.ssh）. At the same time when you run this command you 
can try to ssh login the vping VM to check whether the floating IP can work. If 
this still failed please paste your external network info like this "openstack 
show external".





[1]https://github.com/opnfv/dovetail/blob/master/dovetail/utils/dovetail_utils.py#L198-L200

[2]https://github.com/opnfv/dovetail/blob/master/docs/testing/user/userguide/testing_guide.rst
 




--
Louie Long
 E-mail: yl...@biigroup.cn 
 Mobile: +86 13261979365
 
Fax: 86-10-5867-8466


Postcode：10

 
Add: 2nd Floor, Building 5, No.58 Jinghai Road, BDA, Beijing, China
 Website: www.biigroup.com  www.cfiec.net




 
-- Original --
From:  "dimitris.tsiolakis";
Date:  Fri, Aug 17, 2018 03:45 PM
To:  "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org"; 

Subject:  [opnfv-tech-discuss][dovetail] Dovetail testing configuration

 
 
Hi Dovetailers,

 

I’m new at the dovetail I’m trying to run dovetail test  cases following the 
latest instruction from testing_guide.rst  
(https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/60823/).

 

I created all mandatory files:

-env_config.sh, ( this is mine looks like 
http://paste.openstack.org/show/728164/) 

-tempest_conf.yaml (same as the sample)

-   pod.yaml  ( https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/883N3Cmrx4/ I also use password 
instead of id_rsa)

-   (I did not create the hosts.yaml since it is optional.)

 

When I run “dovetail run” test fails ( logs can be found here 
http://paste.openstack.org/show/728169/ )

 

I seems that the pod.yaml file is not correct and it cannot read the SUT info 
but I cannot  Understand what is wrong.

Also the absence of hosts.yaml  file is raising a warning what is this file and 
how should I update it?

 

Can you help me with the configuration and the execution?

 

Thank you in advance

 

Dimitris Tsiolakis

SDN NFV Thessaloniki

_
Intracom Telecom
Marinou Antipa 41, Pilea-Thessaloniki,GR 57001
t:   +30 2310497389
f:   +30 2310497330

d...@intracom-telecom.com 

www.intracom-telecom.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


JOIN US

Mobile World Congress Americas

12-14 September
Los Angeles, USA

 

Gitex Technology Week

14-18 October
Dubai, UAE

 

FutureCom

15-18 October

Sao Paulo, Brazil

 

AfricaCom

13-15 November

Cape Town, S. Africa

 

Mobile World Congress

25-28 February 2019

Barcelona, Spain

 

Mobile World Congress Shanghai

26-28 June 2019
Shanghai, China

 


The information in this e-mail message and any attachments are intended only 
for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may be confidential. 
If you have received this transmission in error, and you are not an intended 
recipient, be aware that any copying, disclosure, distribution or use of this 
transmission or its contents is prohibited. Intracom Telecom and the sender 
accept no liability for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer 
system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this 
email. Views or opinions expressed in this message may be those of the author 
and may not necessarily represent those of Intracom Telecom.

 

 




 
 




 
 


有道词典rnal network in ...
详细X

  rnal网络信息“openstack显示外部”。
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#21792): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21792
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/24610508/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Dovetail testcase naming

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Cedric,

the general idea of the test case names in Dovetail is that every name should 
give away what a test is roughly doing and provide some simple form of 
categorization. We have hence renamed the test cases after the first release to 
get rid of the numbering which didn’t say anything about the purpose of a given 
test [1][2]. The new scheme is now “dovetail..”.

Given this naming scheme, sdnvpn is a test case category which coincides with 
the project name. Technically that’s probably not a good name, but instead 
bgpvpn would be a better name.

Moreover, during the time we worked on [2], we were thinking about how to 
include the name of the test framework in the test case name. We somehow didn’t 
follow this through, but given this discussion here it would make sense to 
change the naming scheme to .. as the 
static dovetail prefix doesn’t add any value anyway. For example, 
dovetail.sdnvpn.foo would then be called functest.bgpvpn.foo. I need to check, 
though, if this renaming has an impact on our code.

Regarding the VNF test cases, I hear your request.  We are a little stretched 
on resources, so I cannot promise much. We might be able to help out after our 
release.

[1] 
https://github.com/opnfv/dovetail/blob/stable/danube/dovetail/compliance/ovp.1.0.0.yml
[2] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/56223/

Cheers
Georg


From: Cedric OLLIVIER 
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 10:47 PM
To: Georg Kunz 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Dovetail testcase naming

Hello,

Could you please clarify why there are two different rules applied about 
Dovetail testcase names?
Most of the testcases coming from OPNFV Test Frameworks are renamed Dovetail 
without the real OPNFV project supporting them (even if they are ran asis).

If I'm not wrong, the only exception is SDNVPN.
This exception seems even more strange because the testcases test the BGPVPN 
[1] API even if ODL is selected as backend.

I don't understand why the same rule is not applied for the other OPNFV 
projects especially when their testcases are executed without any change.
Supporting juju_epc and all VNFS are much more difficult than mainly copy/paste 
our docs and add few yml files [2]
We would appreciate any little help from Dovetail about the VNF dev/support.

Cédric

[1] https://docs.openstack.org/networking-bgpvpn/latest/
[2] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/57095/
[3] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/59675/

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#21641): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/21641
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/23844846/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] agenda for weekly call on 2018-05-30

[Beierl, Mark]

Hello,

Unfortunately this conflicts with the Edge Cloud project meeting, so I might 
not be able to attend this week's Dovetail to talk about an OVP performance 
proposal.

Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Developer
Dell EMC | Cloud & Communication Service Provider Solution
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com

On May 29, 2018, at 12:30, Georg Kunz 
mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>> wrote:

Hi,

I forgot to mention: this week’s call will be one hour earlier than usual:
13:00-14:00 UTC (6:00-7:00AM Pacific Daylight Time)

Best regards
Georg

From: Georg Kunz
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:28 PM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss][dovetail] agenda for weekly call on 2018-05-30

Hi all,

This is the preliminary agenda for tomorrow’s Dovetail call:
• web portal update
• proposal for a first performance for OVP
• critical bug: vping reported as passed despite failing
• plugfest preparation
• CI status
• AOB

Best regards
Georg
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] agenda for weekly call on 2018-05-30

[Georg Kunz]

Hi,

I forgot to mention: this week's call will be one hour earlier than usual:
13:00-14:00 UTC (6:00-7:00AM Pacific Daylight Time)

Best regards
Georg

From: Georg Kunz
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:28 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss][dovetail] agenda for weekly call on 2018-05-30

Hi all,

This is the preliminary agenda for tomorrow's Dovetail call:
* web portal update
* proposal for a first performance for OVP
* critical bug: vping reported as passed despite failing
* plugfest preparation
* CI status
* AOB

Best regards
Georg
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 2018-05-23

[MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)]

Hi Mark and Georg,
I would really like to discuss this topic,
but I can't make the meeting this week.

Al

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 1:33 AM
To: Beierl, Mark <mark.bei...@dell.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 
2018-05-23

Hi Mark,

I very much like the idea because this methodology allows us to evaluate a 
specific performance characteristic ("no performace interference between 
storage and network data") without having to report concrete performance 
numbers as part of OVP.

The next Dovetail call is tomorrow, and we can add this to the agenda. If you 
cannot make it on such short notice, we'll move it to next week. Feedback via 
email from the team and the performance benchmarking community is welcome any 
time.

Best regards
Georg

From: Beierl, Mark [mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:26 PM
To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 
2018-05-23

Had a brief conversation with Georg about setting a bar for entering into the 
performance phase of Dovetail:

The concept is to run a tenant network workload (Vsperf or NFVBench) and 
capture the baseline. Next run a storage network workload (StorPerf) and 
capture its baseline. Next run both together and if there is a significant drop 
in either (ie don't record the actual throughputs, just the delta) report that 
as non compliant because storage and tenant networks are colliding.

Perhaps we can discuss this concept in an upcoming meeting?
Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Engineer
Dell EMC | Cloud & Communication Service Provider Solution
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com<mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com>

On May 22, 2018, at 17:52, Georg Kunz 
<georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi Dovetailers,

This is the preliminary agenda for tomorrow's weekly Dovetail call:


  *   web portal update
  *   plugfest preparation
  *   CI status
  *   AOB

Best regards
Georg
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss=DwMFAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw=sB_qyeYTYlgqJEqI0m9iXO9MUEqvhKT2S8BTqGxwwIY=tGqk-ym0H_h4T5hI4rEnGdwTRF7kMcEHgwvQGhVTGj0=>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 2018-05-23

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Al,
Hi Alec,

Thanks for the feedback and interest. I'll put this topic on the agenda for 
next week and then we'll certainly also follow this up during the plugfest the 
week after.

Best regards
Georg

From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:a...@research.att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 6:57 AM
To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>; Beierl, Mark <mark.bei...@dell.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 
2018-05-23

Hi Mark and Georg,
I would really like to discuss this topic,
but I can't make the meeting this week.

Al

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 1:33 AM
To: Beierl, Mark <mark.bei...@dell.com<mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 
2018-05-23

Hi Mark,

I very much like the idea because this methodology allows us to evaluate a 
specific performance characteristic ("no performace interference between 
storage and network data") without having to report concrete performance 
numbers as part of OVP.

The next Dovetail call is tomorrow, and we can add this to the agenda. If you 
cannot make it on such short notice, we'll move it to next week. Feedback via 
email from the team and the performance benchmarking community is welcome any 
time.

Best regards
Georg

From: Beierl, Mark [mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:26 PM
To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 
2018-05-23

Had a brief conversation with Georg about setting a bar for entering into the 
performance phase of Dovetail:

The concept is to run a tenant network workload (Vsperf or NFVBench) and 
capture the baseline. Next run a storage network workload (StorPerf) and 
capture its baseline. Next run both together and if there is a significant drop 
in either (ie don't record the actual throughputs, just the delta) report that 
as non compliant because storage and tenant networks are colliding.

Perhaps we can discuss this concept in an upcoming meeting?
Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Engineer
Dell EMC | Cloud & Communication Service Provider Solution
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com<mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com>

On May 22, 2018, at 17:52, Georg Kunz 
<georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi Dovetailers,

This is the preliminary agenda for tomorrow's weekly Dovetail call:


  *   web portal update
  *   plugfest preparation
  *   CI status
  *   AOB

Best regards
Georg
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_mailman_listinfo_opnfv-2Dtech-2Ddiscuss=DwMFAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw=sB_qyeYTYlgqJEqI0m9iXO9MUEqvhKT2S8BTqGxwwIY=tGqk-ym0H_h4T5hI4rEnGdwTRF7kMcEHgwvQGhVTGj0=>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 2018-05-23

[Alec Hothan (ahothan)]

Cross-plane interference verification is critical to proper operation and 
planning and would be great to add to OVP.
I am planning to discuss about this kind of test with the Bottleneck team at 
the plugfest since that is what Bottleneck should be able to support.
As for which data plane tool is best suited for this task, given this is a full 
system stack, NFVbench is more appropriate since VSPERF is more applicable for 
isolated vswitch level performance benchmarking – in general you cannot and 
should run VSPERF on a full stack since the vswitch would be under the full 
control of the stack controller (Neutron ML2 plugin or any SDN controller).

The main impediment to running any data plane benchmarking is the hardware 
requirements, which is something I can discuss with Georg at the plugfest. It 
will require the OVP system under test to expose certain interfaces to an 
external traffic generator, not a big deal but often misunderstood.

Thanks

Alec


From: <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> on behalf of Georg Kunz 
<georg.k...@ericsson.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:33 PM
To: "Beierl, Mark" <mark.bei...@dell.com>
Cc: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 
2018-05-23

Hi Mark,

I very much like the idea because this methodology allows us to evaluate a 
specific performance characteristic (“no performace interference between 
storage and network data”) without having to report concrete performance 
numbers as part of OVP.

The next Dovetail call is tomorrow, and we can add this to the agenda. If you 
cannot make it on such short notice, we’ll move it to next week. Feedback via 
email from the team and the performance benchmarking community is welcome any 
time.

Best regards
Georg

From: Beierl, Mark [mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:26 PM
To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 
2018-05-23

Had a brief conversation with Georg about setting a bar for entering into the 
performance phase of Dovetail:

The concept is to run a tenant network workload (Vsperf or NFVBench) and 
capture the baseline. Next run a storage network workload (StorPerf) and 
capture its baseline. Next run both together and if there is a significant drop 
in either (ie don’t record the actual throughputs, just the delta) report that 
as non compliant because storage and tenant networks are colliding.

Perhaps we can discuss this concept in an upcoming meeting?
Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Engineer
Dell EMC | Cloud & Communication Service Provider Solution
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com<mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com>

On May 22, 2018, at 17:52, Georg Kunz 
<georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi Dovetailers,

This is the preliminary agenda for tomorrow’s weekly Dovetail call:

· web portal update
· plugfest preparation
· CI status
· AOB

Best regards
Georg
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 2018-05-23

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Mark,

I very much like the idea because this methodology allows us to evaluate a 
specific performance characteristic ("no performace interference between 
storage and network data") without having to report concrete performance 
numbers as part of OVP.

The next Dovetail call is tomorrow, and we can add this to the agenda. If you 
cannot make it on such short notice, we'll move it to next week. Feedback via 
email from the team and the performance benchmarking community is welcome any 
time.

Best regards
Georg

From: Beierl, Mark [mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:26 PM
To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 
2018-05-23

Had a brief conversation with Georg about setting a bar for entering into the 
performance phase of Dovetail:

The concept is to run a tenant network workload (Vsperf or NFVBench) and 
capture the baseline. Next run a storage network workload (StorPerf) and 
capture its baseline. Next run both together and if there is a significant drop 
in either (ie don't record the actual throughputs, just the delta) report that 
as non compliant because storage and tenant networks are colliding.

Perhaps we can discuss this concept in an upcoming meeting?
Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Engineer
Dell EMC | Cloud & Communication Service Provider Solution
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com<mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com>

On May 22, 2018, at 17:52, Georg Kunz 
<georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi Dovetailers,

This is the preliminary agenda for tomorrow's weekly Dovetail call:


  *   web portal update
  *   plugfest preparation
  *   CI status
  *   AOB

Best regards
Georg
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for weekly meeting - 2018-05-23

[Beierl, Mark]

Had a brief conversation with Georg about setting a bar for entering into the 
performance phase of Dovetail:

The concept is to run a tenant network workload (Vsperf or NFVBench) and 
capture the baseline. Next run a storage network workload (StorPerf) and 
capture its baseline. Next run both together and if there is a significant drop 
in either (ie don’t record the actual throughputs, just the delta) report that 
as non compliant because storage and tenant networks are colliding.

Perhaps we can discuss this concept in an upcoming meeting?

Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Engineer
Dell EMC | Cloud & Communication Service Provider Solution
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com

On May 22, 2018, at 17:52, Georg Kunz 
> wrote:

Hi Dovetailers,

This is the preliminary agenda for tomorrow’s weekly Dovetail call:


  *   web portal update
  *   plugfest preparation
  *   CI status
  *   AOB

Best regards
Georg
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] agenda for weekly project call - 2018-03-21

[xudan (N)]

Hi all,

I have uploaded the slides about the status of proposed test cases I presented 
at yesterday's Dovetail weekly meeting.
Here is the wiki link https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/OVP+2nd+Release

If you have any question about that, please feel free to contact me.

Regards,
Xudan

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 9:00 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] agenda for weekly project call - 
2018-03-21

Hi all,

Please find the preliminary agenda for today's dovetail call below:

* Next two meetings
* ONS session
* Status of Dovetail runs in CI
* Release roadmap
* AOB

Meeting details

  *   Weekly Technical Discussion Wednesday at 14:00-15:00 UTC (7:00-8:00AM 
Pacific Daylight Time)
  *   IRC channel: IRC channel: #opnfv-dovetail@ Freenode (Web 
Chat)
  *   https://zoom.us/j/2362828999


Best regards
Georg
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer

[Heather Kirksey]

I think other folks have captured my own sentiments here, but thanks again
for your contributions and for helping us get a successful launch of this
program. I look forward to what Dovetail and OVP will continue to achieve
in the future!

Heather

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Raymond Paik <rp...@linuxfoundation.org>
wrote:

> Dave & Wenjing:
>
> I'd like to add my thanks as well.  As original members of Dovetail both
> of you put in a lot of work in the past few years to bring the community
> through the OVP launch.  In addition, you're also stepping down as
> committer gracefully, which I also appreciate :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ray
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Wenjing
>>
>> You were the consistent strong force that drove this project from concept
>> to reality. I have learned a lot from you and it's been a pleasure!
>>
>> Trevor
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
>> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 6:01 AM
>> To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>;
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
>>
>> Hi Wenjing,
>>
>> I'd like to thank you for your valuable efforts and contributions to the
>> project, driving it to a successful first release. It was a pleasure
>> working with you.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Georg
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:23 AM
>> > To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>; Dave Neary
>> > <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> > Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
>> >
>> > Hi Georg
>> >
>> > I would like to take the same step to reassign as a committer to
>> Dovetail.
>> >
>> > I recall the discussion we had back in the PlugFest in Orange last year
>> to
>> > remain as a committer in order to see through the first release of
>> Dovetail
>> > and OVP. Now with that goal successfully accomplished, I'm happy to step
>> > away from the committer role. Thanks everyone for your support in the
>> past.
>> > It's great to see a diverse project team taking it forward.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Wenjing
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-
>> > discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
>> > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:06 PM
>> > To: Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
>> >
>> > Hi Dave,
>> >
>> > First of all, thank you very much for your contributions to the project
>> and the
>> > first release of OVP.
>> >
>> > According to [1], it suffices to send an email to the project (done). I
>> will
>> > forward your email to the TSC mailing list and update the INFO.yml file
>> > correspondingly.
>> >
>> > [1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/Committer+Removal
>> >
>> > Best regards
>> > Georg
>> >
>> >
>> > > -Original Message-
>> > > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-
>> > > discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
>> > > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 8:40 PM
>> > > To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> > > Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
>> > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I have said for several months that it was my intention to resign as a
>> > > committer of Dovetail after the initial launch of the CVP. Vendor
>> > > diversity of the committers is something that's important to me, and
>> > > since Zenghui Shi has joined the Dovetail committer team, I want to
>> > > ensure I am practicing what I preach.
>> > >
>> > > Therefore, I would like to resign as a committer of Dovetail,
>> > > effective immediately.
>> > >
>> > > Do I need to do anything else (li

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer

[Raymond Paik]

Dave & Wenjing:

I'd like to add my thanks as well.  As original members of Dovetail both of
you put in a lot of work in the past few years to bring the community
through the OVP launch.  In addition, you're also stepping down as
committer gracefully, which I also appreciate :-)

Cheers,

Ray

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com>
wrote:

> Hi Wenjing
>
> You were the consistent strong force that drove this project from concept
> to reality. I have learned a lot from you and it's been a pleasure!
>
> Trevor
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 6:01 AM
> To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>;
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
>
> Hi Wenjing,
>
> I'd like to thank you for your valuable efforts and contributions to the
> project, driving it to a successful first release. It was a pleasure
> working with you.
>
> Best regards
> Georg
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:23 AM
> > To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>; Dave Neary
> > <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> >
> > Hi Georg
> >
> > I would like to take the same step to reassign as a committer to
> Dovetail.
> >
> > I recall the discussion we had back in the PlugFest in Orange last year
> to
> > remain as a committer in order to see through the first release of
> Dovetail
> > and OVP. Now with that goal successfully accomplished, I'm happy to step
> > away from the committer role. Thanks everyone for your support in the
> past.
> > It's great to see a diverse project team taking it forward.
> >
> > Regards
> > Wenjing
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-
> > discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
> > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:06 PM
> > To: Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > First of all, thank you very much for your contributions to the project
> and the
> > first release of OVP.
> >
> > According to [1], it suffices to send an email to the project (done). I
> will
> > forward your email to the TSC mailing list and update the INFO.yml file
> > correspondingly.
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/Committer+Removal
> >
> > Best regards
> > Georg
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-
> > > discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 8:40 PM
> > > To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > > Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I have said for several months that it was my intention to resign as a
> > > committer of Dovetail after the initial launch of the CVP. Vendor
> > > diversity of the committers is something that's important to me, and
> > > since Zenghui Shi has joined the Dovetail committer team, I want to
> > > ensure I am practicing what I preach.
> > >
> > > Therefore, I would like to resign as a committer of Dovetail,
> > > effective immediately.
> > >
> > > Do I need to do anything else (like submit a patch to the committer
> > > list in
> > > Gerrit) or does this email suffice?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Dave.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards,
> > Red
> > > Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> > > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
> > > ___
> > > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> > > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> > ___
> > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer

[Cooper, Trevor]

Hi Wenjing

You were the consistent strong force that drove this project from concept to 
reality. I have learned a lot from you and it's been a pleasure!

Trevor



-Original Message-
From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 6:01 AM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer

Hi Wenjing,

I'd like to thank you for your valuable efforts and contributions to the 
project, driving it to a successful first release. It was a pleasure working 
with you.

Best regards
Georg

> -Original Message-
> From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:23 AM
> To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>; Dave Neary
> <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> 
> Hi Georg
> 
> I would like to take the same step to reassign as a committer to Dovetail.
> 
> I recall the discussion we had back in the PlugFest in Orange last year to
> remain as a committer in order to see through the first release of Dovetail
> and OVP. Now with that goal successfully accomplished, I'm happy to step
> away from the committer role. Thanks everyone for your support in the past.
> It's great to see a diverse project team taking it forward.
> 
> Regards
> Wenjing
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-
> discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:06 PM
> To: Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> First of all, thank you very much for your contributions to the project and 
> the
> first release of OVP.
> 
> According to [1], it suffices to send an email to the project (done). I will
> forward your email to the TSC mailing list and update the INFO.yml file
> correspondingly.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/Committer+Removal
> 
> Best regards
> Georg
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-
> > discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
> > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 8:40 PM
> > To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have said for several months that it was my intention to resign as a
> > committer of Dovetail after the initial launch of the CVP. Vendor
> > diversity of the committers is something that's important to me, and
> > since Zenghui Shi has joined the Dovetail committer team, I want to
> > ensure I am practicing what I preach.
> >
> > Therefore, I would like to resign as a committer of Dovetail,
> > effective immediately.
> >
> > Do I need to do anything else (like submit a patch to the committer
> > list in
> > Gerrit) or does this email suffice?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave.
> >
> > --
> > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards,
> Red
> > Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
> > ___
> > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Wenjing,

I'd like to thank you for your valuable efforts and contributions to the 
project, driving it to a successful first release. It was a pleasure working 
with you.

Best regards
Georg

> -Original Message-
> From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:23 AM
> To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>; Dave Neary
> <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> 
> Hi Georg
> 
> I would like to take the same step to reassign as a committer to Dovetail.
> 
> I recall the discussion we had back in the PlugFest in Orange last year to
> remain as a committer in order to see through the first release of Dovetail
> and OVP. Now with that goal successfully accomplished, I'm happy to step
> away from the committer role. Thanks everyone for your support in the past.
> It's great to see a diverse project team taking it forward.
> 
> Regards
> Wenjing
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-
> discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:06 PM
> To: Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> First of all, thank you very much for your contributions to the project and 
> the
> first release of OVP.
> 
> According to [1], it suffices to send an email to the project (done). I will
> forward your email to the TSC mailing list and update the INFO.yml file
> correspondingly.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/Committer+Removal
> 
> Best regards
> Georg
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-
> > discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
> > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 8:40 PM
> > To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have said for several months that it was my intention to resign as a
> > committer of Dovetail after the initial launch of the CVP. Vendor
> > diversity of the committers is something that's important to me, and
> > since Zenghui Shi has joined the Dovetail committer team, I want to
> > ensure I am practicing what I preach.
> >
> > Therefore, I would like to resign as a committer of Dovetail,
> > effective immediately.
> >
> > Do I need to do anything else (like submit a patch to the committer
> > list in
> > Gerrit) or does this email suffice?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave.
> >
> > --
> > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards,
> Red
> > Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
> > ___
> > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer

[Dave Neary]

The last of the originals! Thanks for your labour's during the days when we 
were not all in agreement, I appreciated the efforts to reach consensus.

It was an honour to work on this project with you, Hongbo, and Chris.

Thanks,
Dave.

- Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi Georg
> 
> I would like to take the same step to reassign as a committer to Dovetail. 
> 
> I recall the discussion we had back in the PlugFest in Orange last year to 
> remain as a committer in order to see through the first release of Dovetail 
> and OVP. Now with that goal successfully accomplished, I'm happy to step away 
> from the committer role. Thanks everyone for your support in the past. It's 
> great to see a diverse project team taking it forward. 
> 
> Regards
> Wenjing
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:06 PM
> To: Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> First of all, thank you very much for your contributions to the project and 
> the first release of OVP.
> 
> According to [1], it suffices to send an email to the project (done). I will 
> forward your email to the TSC mailing list and update the INFO.yml file 
> correspondingly. 
> 
> [1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/Committer+Removal
> 
> Best regards
> Georg
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech- 
> > discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
> > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 8:40 PM
> > To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I have said for several months that it was my intention to resign as a 
> > committer of Dovetail after the initial launch of the CVP. Vendor 
> > diversity of the committers is something that's important to me, and 
> > since Zenghui Shi has joined the Dovetail committer team, I want to 
> > ensure I am practicing what I preach.
> > 
> > Therefore, I would like to resign as a committer of Dovetail, 
> > effective immediately.
> > 
> > Do I need to do anything else (like submit a patch to the committer 
> > list in
> > Gerrit) or does this email suffice?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Dave.
> > 
> > --
> > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red 
> > Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338 
> > ___
> > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer

[Wenjing Chu]

Hi Georg

I would like to take the same step to reassign as a committer to Dovetail. 

I recall the discussion we had back in the PlugFest in Orange last year to 
remain as a committer in order to see through the first release of Dovetail and 
OVP. Now with that goal successfully accomplished, I'm happy to step away from 
the committer role. Thanks everyone for your support in the past. It's great to 
see a diverse project team taking it forward. 

Regards
Wenjing



-Original Message-
From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:06 PM
To: Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer

Hi Dave,

First of all, thank you very much for your contributions to the project and the 
first release of OVP.

According to [1], it suffices to send an email to the project (done). I will 
forward your email to the TSC mailing list and update the INFO.yml file 
correspondingly. 

[1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/Committer+Removal

Best regards
Georg


> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech- 
> discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 8:40 PM
> To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I have said for several months that it was my intention to resign as a 
> committer of Dovetail after the initial launch of the CVP. Vendor 
> diversity of the committers is something that's important to me, and 
> since Zenghui Shi has joined the Dovetail committer team, I want to 
> ensure I am practicing what I preach.
> 
> Therefore, I would like to resign as a committer of Dovetail, 
> effective immediately.
> 
> Do I need to do anything else (like submit a patch to the committer 
> list in
> Gerrit) or does this email suffice?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave.
> 
> --
> Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red 
> Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Nomination of PTL promotion for:

[Lincoln Lavoie]

+1

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:37 AM, Wenjing Chu  wrote:

> +1 for Georg.
>
>
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tianhongbo
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 01, 2018 3:14 AM
> *To:* Wenjing Chu ; Tianhongbo <
> hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; Dave Neary ; Georg Kunz
> ; 'Cooper, Trevor' ; '
> z...@redhat.com' ; Lincoln Lavoie ;
> Wanglei (Leo, CCN) ; Fu Qiao <
> fuq...@chinamobile.com>
> *Cc:* 'opnfv-tech-discuss' 
> *Subject:* [dovetail] Nomination of PTL promotion for: 
>
>
>
> Hi all committers:
>
>
>
> Georg has made a great contribution as committer, and he is the only on
> candidate.
>
>
>
> His contribution link:  https://gerrit.opnfv.org/
> gerrit/#/q/owner:georg.kunz%2540ericsson.com+status:merged
>
>
>
> Please vote for his new role of dovetail PTL(+1 or -1).
>
>
>
>
>
> Let me do it first, thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
>
>
> hongbo
>



-- 
***
*Lincoln Lavoie*
Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies


www.iol.unh.edu
21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824
Mobile: +1-603-674-2755
lylav...@iol.unh.edu
   


Ars sine scientia nihil est! -- Art without science is nothing.
Scientia sine ars est vacua! -- Science without art is empty.

Broadband Forum Gfast Certified Product List

***
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Nomination of PTL promotion for:

[Wenjing Chu]

+1 for Georg.

Wenjing


From: Tianhongbo
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 3:14 AM
To: Wenjing Chu ; Tianhongbo 
; Dave Neary ; Georg Kunz 
; 'Cooper, Trevor' ; 
'z...@redhat.com' ; Lincoln Lavoie ; 
Wanglei (Leo, CCN) ; Fu Qiao 

Cc: 'opnfv-tech-discuss' 
Subject: [dovetail] Nomination of PTL promotion for: 

Hi all committers:

Georg has made a great contribution as committer, and he is the only on 
candidate.

His contribution link:  
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/q/owner:georg.kunz%2540ericsson.com+status:merged

Please vote for his new role of dovetail PTL(+1 or -1).


Let me do it first, thanks


+1


hongbo
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Nomination of PTL promotion for:

[SerenaFeng(zte)]

+1

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:16 AM Leo Wang  wrote:

> +1
>
> LeoWang
> --
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org <
> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> on behalf of Tianhongbo <
> hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2018 11:13 AM
> *To:* Wenjing Chu; Tianhongbo; Dave Neary; Georg Kunz; 'Cooper, Trevor'; '
> z...@redhat.com'; Lincoln Lavoie; Wanglei (Leo, CCN); Fu Qiao
> *Cc:* 'opnfv-tech-discuss'
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Nomination of PTL promotion
> for: 
>
>
> Hi all committers:
>
>
>
> Georg has made a great contribution as committer, and he is the only on
> candidate.
>
>
>
> His contribution link:
> https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/q/owner:georg.kunz%2540ericsson.com+status:merged
>
>
>
> Please vote for his new role of dovetail PTL(+1 or -1).
>
>
>
>
>
> Let me do it first, thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
>
>
> hongbo
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Nomination of PTL promotion for:

[Leo Wang]

+1

LeoWang

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
 on behalf of Tianhongbo 

Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 11:13 AM
To: Wenjing Chu; Tianhongbo; Dave Neary; Georg Kunz; 'Cooper, Trevor'; 
'z...@redhat.com'; Lincoln Lavoie; Wanglei (Leo, CCN); Fu Qiao
Cc: 'opnfv-tech-discuss'
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Nomination of PTL promotion for: 



Hi all committers:



Georg has made a great contribution as committer, and he is the only on 
candidate.



His contribution link:  
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/q/owner:georg.kunz%2540ericsson.com+status:merged



Please vote for his new role of dovetail PTL(+1 or -1).





Let me do it first, thanks





+1





hongbo
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Nomination of PTL promotion for:

[Cooper, Trevor]

+1

From: Tianhongbo [mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 3:14 AM
To: Wenjing Chu ; Tianhongbo 
; Dave Neary ; Georg Kunz 
; Cooper, Trevor ; 
'z...@redhat.com' ; Lincoln Lavoie ; 
Wanglei (Leo, CCN) ; Fu Qiao 

Cc: 'opnfv-tech-discuss' 
Subject: [dovetail] Nomination of PTL promotion for: 

Hi all committers:

Georg has made a great contribution as committer, and he is the only on 
candidate.

His contribution link:  
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/q/owner:georg.kunz%2540ericsson.com+status:merged

Please vote for his new role of dovetail PTL(+1 or -1).


Let me do it first, thanks


+1


hongbo
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]step down the dovetail PTL and call for new PTL

[Tianhongbo]

Hi：

Add TSC


Hongbo

-Original Message-
From: Dave Neary [mailto:dne...@redhat.com] 
Sent: 2018年1月27日 10:10
To: Tianhongbo ; 'Christopher Price' 
; 'marko.a.kui...@nokia.com' 
; 'Rautakumpu, Mika (Nokia - FI/Espoo)' 
; 'sheng-ann...@ericsson.com' 
; 'yangjian...@chinamobile.com' 
; 'zhang.ju...@zte.com.cn' 
; 'HU, BIN' ; 'l...@biigroup.cn' 
; 'Tetsuya Nakamura' ; Wenjing Chu 
; Christopher Donley (Chris) 
; 'Jose Lausuch' ; 
'Shobhan AyyadevaraSesha (sayyadev)' ; 'Canio Cillis' 
; 'Marco Varlese' ; 
'Kedalagudde, Meghashree Dattatri' ; 
'Lawrence Lamers' ; 'Georg Kunz' 
; 'Maria Toeroe' ; 
'Rathnakumar Kayyar' ; 'Gabor Halász' 
; 'Pierre Lynch' ; 
'rgri...@linuxfoundation.org' ; 'Ganesh Rajan' 
; 'Ahmed Elbornou (amaged)' ; 
'Csatari, Gergely (Nokia - HU/Budapest)' ; 'GUPTA, 
ALOK' ; xudan (N) ; 'DRUTA, DAN' 
; Hesham ElBakoury ; 'Tallgren, 
Tapio (Nokia - FI/Espoo)' ; 'Vul, Alex' 
; 'Reid Cheng (xincheng)' ; 'Tomasini, 
Lorenzo' ; 'Bernier, Daniel' 
; 'Seiler, Glenn' ; 'Lingli 
Deng' ; 'Juraj Linkes -X (jlinkes - PANTHEON 
TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)' ; 'Ray Wong' ; 
'Wee Kok Liang Edmund' ; 'Charles Hale' 
; 'Cooper, Trevor' ; 'Andrew 
Veitch' ; 'Alan McNamee' ; 
'James Buchanan' ; 'Masood Ul Amin' 
; yunchao hu ; 'Mark Voelker' 
; 'SULLIVAN, BRYAN L' ; 'Catherine Cuong 
Diep' ; 'Aron Wahl' ; 'Jose Angel Lausuch' 
; Henry Fourie ; 'Frattura, David' 
; 'Pauls, Michael' 
Subject: Re: [dovetail]step down the dovetail PTL and call for new PTL

Hongbo,

Thank you for your service as Dovetail PTL, Hongbo! Best of luck in your future 
role, I am glad that you got to see a Dovetail release.

Regards,
Dave.

On 01/26/2018 07:41 PM, Tianhongbo wrote:
> Hi all：
> 
>  
> 
> I have been Dovetail PTL for 2 releases, and I am  Lucky  to see the 
> first official Dovetail released.
> 
> Thanks all committers and contributors. Thanks for community support.
>  Without your help, this cannot happen.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> But I have been reassigned to a new role internally and will resign as 
> PTL. Georg Kunz has agreed to step forward as a candidate for the new 
> PTL. Thanks Georg. Georg has made a lot of contribution to Dovetail. I 
> believe he can be a great PTL going forward. I’d also like to ask if 
> there are other committers who’d like to volunteer as a candidate.
> Please respond in the next few days by 1/31 if anyone is interested
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
>  
> 
> Hongbo
> 

--
Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] [functest] Functest maturity test cases in Euphrates

[ollivier . cedric]

Hello,
All Functest testcases (Euphrates) should be considered as mature and
the overall status of our containers is OK.https://build.opnfv.org/ci/j
ob/functest-apex-baremetal-daily-
euphrates/407/consolehttps://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/functest/job/funct
est-daisy-baremetal-daily-euphrates/147/console...
I think you could simply run all Functest testcases and complete the
current list. It's just a matter of duration.
I precise that several testcases coming from other OPNFV projects (e.g.
bgpvpn) are failing (e.g. orchestra_openims).But only Functest
testcases are selected when calculating the overall results.
Cédric
On mer., 2017-12-20 at 09:51 +, xudan (N) wrote:
> Hi Functest Team,
>  
> Dovetail Team is working on the Euphrates test case scope.
> For Functest, could you give some information about the maturity test
> cases in Euphrates?
> This is the requirements that are mandatory for a test case to be
> submitted for consideration in the OVP test suite.
> http://docs.opnfv.org/en/latest/submodules/dovetail/docs/testing/deve
> loper/testcaserequirements/index.html
>  
> Currently, Dovetail has already included some Functest test cases:
> 
> 1. 
> vping_ssh and vping_userdata
> 
> 2. 
> refstack_defcore
> 
> 3. 
> tempest
> 
> 4. 
> bgpvpn
>  
> Looking forward to your reply.
>  
> BR,
> Dan Xu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for this week's meeting on 10/27

[Georg Kunz]

Hi all,

To item #3: While links to our official documentation are still missing on the 
docs.opnfv.org landing page, I have updated the Dovetail wiki [1] to point to 
the correctly formatted docs instead of the ones on artifacts.opnfv.org.

[1] 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+%28Danube%29+Documentation+for+Review

Georg

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 5:12 AM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Agenda for this week's meeting on 10/27

Hi Dovetailers

For this week's call, the proposed agenda:


  1.  Updates on dovetail 0.8, web portal, a quick demo
  2.  Beta test status, issues, questions
  3.  Document can go on to docs-danube?
  4.  Future planning etherpad

Thanks.
Wenjing

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail][test-wg] Feedback from Dovetail to Test WG

[Georg Kunz]

Hi all,

A short notice reminder: In today's Test WG meeting, we will talk about the 
collaboration of Dovetail and the test WG and the evolution of future test 
areas. Please add your input and feedback to the etherpad:
https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/dovetail-testwg-feedback-collaboration

Best regards
Georg

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 9:53 AM
To: Tianhongbo ; Wenjing Chu 
; Cooper, Trevor ; 
'z...@redhat.com' ; 'lylav...@iol.unh.edu' 
; Wanglei (Grakiss) ; 
'fuq...@chinamobile.com' ; xudan (N) 
; Tim Irnich ; Christopher Price 
; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail][test-wg] Feedback from Dovetail to 
Test WG

Hi,

Including the tech-discuss mailing list for better visibility.

Cheers
Georg

From: Georg Kunz
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 1:06 PM
To: Tianhongbo 
>; Georg Kunz 
>; Wenjing Chu 
>; Cooper, Trevor 
>; 'z...@redhat.com' 
>; 'lylav...@iol.unh.edu' 
>; Wanglei (Grakiss) 
>; 
'fuq...@chinamobile.com' 
>; xudan (N) 
>; Tim Irnich 
>; Christopher Price 
>
Subject: Feedback from Dovetail to Test WG

Hi Dovetailers,

In last week's test WG meeting, we talked about the relationship between 
Dovetail and the test WG in the context of the Dovestack proposal. Prakash was 
not on the call, but there was rather uniform agreement that the test WG is the 
forum for driving the evolution of test cases and test coverage in OPNFV - in 
particular for consumption by Dovetail/CVP.

In general, the interaction between the test WG and Dovetail can still be 
improved. Morgan hence proposed to collect feedback from Dovetail towards the 
test WG and present it to the test WG next week. I have started to put my 
thoughts on this matter in an etherpad:
https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/dovetail-testwg-feedback-collaboration

I'd like to ask you to add your own thoughts and feedback to the etherpad. 
Hopefully, we can briefly talk about this in tomorrow's call as well.

Best regards
Georg
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Weekly meeting agenda 10/13

[Wenjing Chu]

Let's add a 15 min slot to discuss feedbacks to the questions raised in test 
WG, in the context of E and F releases. We may not close on all issues but at 
least open the discussion.
The Jira does not have any critical issues at the moment, so maybe we'll 
postpone that to next week. The new agenda then looks like this:


-Tutorial : hands on process going through CVP testing (Eddie 
Arrage)... 45 min

-Feedbacks to questions raised in the test WG... (Xudan, Georg) 15 min

Thanks.

Wenjing

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:50 PM
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Weekly meeting agenda 10/13

Hi Dovetailers

For this week, we will focus on beta testing:


-Tutorial : hands on process going through CVP testing (Eddie Arrage). 
This will take up most of the time, if not all.

-Jira scrub of open issues, if we have time.

-If time permits, we may start on Plugfest and next release topics.

Anyone participating in Beta testing or interested in learning, please attend 
the tutorial.

Regards
Wenjing

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Weekly call agenda 9/29

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Wenjing,

Yes, I can give a brief update.

Cheers
Georg

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 9:22 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Weekly call agenda 9/29

Hi Dovetailers


  *   For this week, we have a singular focus to review preparations and to 
start beta, including 0.7.0 (beta) release, web portal, all relevant docs, and 
support mechanism.
  *   Next week we may be impacted by China's holidays - let's see if we need 
to cancel the call and if any alternative support is needed.
  *   If time permit, Georg, can you update if we are ready to finalize on doc 
publication plan?
Thanks.

Regards

Wenjing Chu
Sr. Director, Open Source and Research
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
(m) +1 (408) 203-2657

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Switch to OpenStack Interoperability tests from DefCore in the docs

[Ildiko Vancsa]

Hi,

Thanks Georg and Wenjing, I will follow the follow up actions on JIRA and 
Gerrit.

Best Regards,
Ildikó


> On 2017. Sep 11., at 11:42, Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ildiko for bringing this to our attention.
> 
> This is one of several known reference related issues that we need to clean 
> up as part of the finalizing the documents/naming.
> Please use this Jira ticket for tracking and additional comments. 
> https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/DOVETAIL-499
> @xudan Would you be able to answer the yml file question?
> 
> Regards
> Wenjing
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:04 AM
> To: Ildiko Vancsa <ildiko.van...@gmail.com>; 
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Switch to OpenStack 
> Interoperability tests from DefCore in the docs
> 
> Hi Ildiko,
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out.
> 
> @Dovetail team: Grepping through the repo, I find occurrences of "defcore" in 
> the documents as well as in yaml files specifying the test cases. I will 
> update the documents, but I'd prefer if someone more familiar with the 
> Dovetail tool can take a look at the yamls and figure out if those test case 
> descriptions can be renamed easily.
> 
> Cheers
> Georg
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech- 
>> discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Ildiko Vancsa
>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:52 PM
>> To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Switch to OpenStack 
>> Interoperability tests from DefCore in the docs
>> 
>> Hi Dovetail team,
>> 
>> While going through the documentation I recognized that you are still 
>> using “DefCore” in the documents when referring to test suites.
>> 
>> We are not using the term “DefCore” in OpenStack anymore. The 
>> activities in this area are driven by the Interoperability Working 
>> Group within OpenStack, and our tool is called RefStack.
>> 
>> To refer to the tests I would like to propose to use “OpenStack 
>> Interoperability Tests” as opposed to “DefCore Tests”.
>> 
>> Thanks and Best Regards,
>> Ildikó
>> (IRC: ildikov)
>> ___
>> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Switch to OpenStack Interoperability tests from DefCore in the docs

[Wenjing Chu]

Thanks Ildiko for bringing this to our attention.

This is one of several known reference related issues that we need to clean up 
as part of the finalizing the documents/naming.
Please use this Jira ticket for tracking and additional comments. 
https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/DOVETAIL-499
@xudan Would you be able to answer the yml file question?

Regards
Wenjing

-Original Message-
From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:04 AM
To: Ildiko Vancsa <ildiko.van...@gmail.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Switch to OpenStack 
Interoperability tests from DefCore in the docs

Hi Ildiko,

Thanks for pointing this out.

@Dovetail team: Grepping through the repo, I find occurrences of "defcore" in 
the documents as well as in yaml files specifying the test cases. I will update 
the documents, but I'd prefer if someone more familiar with the Dovetail tool 
can take a look at the yamls and figure out if those test case descriptions can 
be renamed easily.

Cheers
Georg


> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech- 
> discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Ildiko Vancsa
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:52 PM
> To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Switch to OpenStack 
> Interoperability tests from DefCore in the docs
> 
> Hi Dovetail team,
> 
> While going through the documentation I recognized that you are still 
> using “DefCore” in the documents when referring to test suites.
> 
> We are not using the term “DefCore” in OpenStack anymore. The 
> activities in this area are driven by the Interoperability Working 
> Group within OpenStack, and our tool is called RefStack.
> 
> To refer to the tests I would like to propose to use “OpenStack 
> Interoperability Tests” as opposed to “DefCore Tests”.
> 
> Thanks and Best Regards,
> Ildikó
> (IRC: ildikov)
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Switch to OpenStack Interoperability tests from DefCore in the docs

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Ildiko,

Thanks for pointing this out.

@Dovetail team: Grepping through the repo, I find occurrences of "defcore" in 
the documents as well as in yaml files specifying the test cases. I will update 
the documents, but I'd prefer if someone more familiar with the Dovetail tool 
can take a look at the yamls and figure out if those test case descriptions can 
be renamed easily.

Cheers
Georg


> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-
> discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Ildiko Vancsa
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:52 PM
> To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Switch to OpenStack Interoperability
> tests from DefCore in the docs
> 
> Hi Dovetail team,
> 
> While going through the documentation I recognized that you are still using
> “DefCore” in the documents when referring to test suites.
> 
> We are not using the term “DefCore” in OpenStack anymore. The activities in
> this area are driven by the Interoperability Working Group within OpenStack,
> and our tool is called RefStack.
> 
> To refer to the tests I would like to propose to use “OpenStack
> Interoperability Tests” as opposed to “DefCore Tests”.
> 
> Thanks and Best Regards,
> Ildikó
> (IRC: ildikov)
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Dovetail team gerrit group

[SerenaFeng(zte)]

Hi Georg,

Would you please add me to the group?
My email used in Gerrit is: feng.xiao...@zte.com.cn

BRs
Serena

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:21 AM Georg Kunz  wrote:

> Hi Dovetailers,
>
>
>
> As briefly discussed during today’s project meeting, I have created a
> group called “Dovetail Team” in Gerrit [1] to simplify adding reviewers to
> patches. Right now, the group contains the committers listed in the
> project’s INFO file [2]. However, I named the group “Dovetail Team” instead
> of “Dovetail Committers” to keep it open for everyone interested in
> reviewing our work.
>
>
>
> So, if you want to be included in this group, let me know (or maybe you
> can even add yourself using the link below).
>
>
>
> [1] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/admin/groups/63,members
>
> [2]
> https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=dovetail.git;a=blob;f=INFO;h=470b7ca884bcb76f73fee7ba7772fa857e1b0373;hb=refs/heads/master
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Georg
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Dovetail team gerrit group

[Wenjing Chu]

Thanks Georg!

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 11:21 AM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Dovetail team gerrit group

Hi Dovetailers,

As briefly discussed during today's project meeting, I have created a group 
called "Dovetail Team" in Gerrit [1] to simplify adding reviewers to patches. 
Right now, the group contains the committers listed in the project's INFO file 
[2]. However, I named the group "Dovetail Team" instead of "Dovetail 
Committers" to keep it open for everyone interested in reviewing our work.

So, if you want to be included in this group, let me know (or maybe you can 
even add yourself using the link below).

[1] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/admin/groups/63,members
[2] 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=dovetail.git;a=blob;f=INFO;h=470b7ca884bcb76f73fee7ba7772fa857e1b0373;hb=refs/heads/master

Cheers
Georg
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Where to find the latest documentation

[Ildiko Vancsa]

Hi Wenjing,

Thank you for the wiki update with the links to the artifacts, it helps to find 
the right bits and pieces to read.

Best Regards,
Ildikó


> On 2017. Sep 6., at 12:30, Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> They are all automatically rendered and updated continuously as part of 
> normal dev process - please look at the artifact repos/URLs for HTML.
> 
> The wiki page is manual and for developers to coordinate their work only. 
> These are works in progress, none is published yet, if that's what you are 
> looking for. 
> 
> On that note, we probably need some help in the process of properly 
> release/publish docs. Can we have a volunteer?
> 
> Regards
> Wenjing
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ildiko Vancsa [mailto:ildiko.van...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 5:28 PM
> To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing....@huawei.com>
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Where to find the latest 
> documentation
> 
> Hi Wenjing,
> 
> Thank you for the update.
> 
> I hoped there’s a published version which is updated continuously, but I will 
> check the open reviews in the meantime and keep an eye on the wiki for the 
> updates.
> 
> Thanks and Best Regards,
> Ildikó
> 
> 
>> On 2017. Sep 5., at 10:52, Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ildiko,
>> 
>> We are at the last few days of having the documentation ready for review. 
>> I'll be updating the wiki with the rendered docs in the next few days.
>> Thanks for checking in and the links should be coming up soon.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Wenjing
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
>> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Ildiko 
>> Vancsa
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 10:04 AM
>> To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Where to find the latest 
>> documentation
>> 
>> Hi Dovetail Team,
>> 
>> I’m trying to catch up on the work you are doing to get a better view on the 
>> plans on the certification and testing activities. I checked the wiki page 
>> and found Gerrit review links on documentation changes and test plans, but I 
>> couldn’t find a link to the latest version of the docs.
>> 
>> Could you please point me to where to find the latest rendered version of 
>> the documentation that you’re working on?
>> 
>> Thanks and Best Regards,
>> Ildikó Váncsa
>> Ecosystem Technical Lead, OpenStack Foundation 
>> ___
>> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> 

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Where to find the latest documentation

[Wenjing Chu]

They are all automatically rendered and updated continuously as part of normal 
dev process - please look at the artifact repos/URLs for HTML.

The wiki page is manual and for developers to coordinate their work only. These 
are works in progress, none is published yet, if that's what you are looking 
for. 

On that note, we probably need some help in the process of properly 
release/publish docs. Can we have a volunteer?

Regards
Wenjing

-Original Message-
From: Ildiko Vancsa [mailto:ildiko.van...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 5:28 PM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Where to find the latest 
documentation

Hi Wenjing,

Thank you for the update.

I hoped there’s a published version which is updated continuously, but I will 
check the open reviews in the meantime and keep an eye on the wiki for the 
updates.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Ildikó


> On 2017. Sep 5., at 10:52, Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ildiko,
> 
> We are at the last few days of having the documentation ready for review. 
> I'll be updating the wiki with the rendered docs in the next few days.
> Thanks for checking in and the links should be coming up soon.
> 
> Regards
> Wenjing
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Ildiko Vancsa
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 10:04 AM
> To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Where to find the latest 
> documentation
> 
> Hi Dovetail Team,
> 
> I’m trying to catch up on the work you are doing to get a better view on the 
> plans on the certification and testing activities. I checked the wiki page 
> and found Gerrit review links on documentation changes and test plans, but I 
> couldn’t find a link to the latest version of the docs.
> 
> Could you please point me to where to find the latest rendered version of the 
> documentation that you’re working on?
> 
> Thanks and Best Regards,
> Ildikó Váncsa
> Ecosystem Technical Lead, OpenStack Foundation 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Where to find the latest documentation

[Ildiko Vancsa]

Hi Wenjing,

Thank you for the update.

I hoped there’s a published version which is updated continuously, but I will 
check the open reviews in the meantime and keep an eye on the wiki for the 
updates.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Ildikó


> On 2017. Sep 5., at 10:52, Wenjing Chu  wrote:
> 
> Hi Ildiko,
> 
> We are at the last few days of having the documentation ready for review. 
> I'll be updating the wiki with the rendered docs in the next few days.
> Thanks for checking in and the links should be coming up soon.
> 
> Regards
> Wenjing
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Ildiko Vancsa
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 10:04 AM
> To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Where to find the latest 
> documentation
> 
> Hi Dovetail Team,
> 
> I’m trying to catch up on the work you are doing to get a better view on the 
> plans on the certification and testing activities. I checked the wiki page 
> and found Gerrit review links on documentation changes and test plans, but I 
> couldn’t find a link to the latest version of the docs.
> 
> Could you please point me to where to find the latest rendered version of the 
> documentation that you’re working on?
> 
> Thanks and Best Regards,
> Ildikó Váncsa
> Ecosystem Technical Lead, OpenStack Foundation 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Where to find the latest documentation

[Wenjing Chu]

Hi Ildiko,

We are at the last few days of having the documentation ready for review. I'll 
be updating the wiki with the rendered docs in the next few days.
Thanks for checking in and the links should be coming up soon.

Regards
Wenjing

-Original Message-
From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Ildiko Vancsa
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 10:04 AM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Where to find the latest documentation

Hi Dovetail Team,

I’m trying to catch up on the work you are doing to get a better view on the 
plans on the certification and testing activities. I checked the wiki page and 
found Gerrit review links on documentation changes and test plans, but I 
couldn’t find a link to the latest version of the docs.

Could you please point me to where to find the latest rendered version of the 
documentation that you’re working on?

Thanks and Best Regards,
Ildikó Váncsa
Ecosystem Technical Lead, OpenStack Foundation 
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[SerenaFeng(zte)]

Hi,

FYI, I added ZTE to the table as offering an OPNFV distro POD for the beta
trial.

BR
Serena

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 8:42 AM Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>
wrote:

> Thanks
>
>
>
> Hongbo
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Cooper, Trevor
> *Sent:* 2017年8月18日 7:29
> *To:* Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Lincoln Lavoie <
> lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
>
>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Done https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta
>
>
>
> Trevor
>
>
>
> *From:* Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com
> <wenjing@huawei.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 9:53 AM
> *To:* Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
> *Cc:* Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN
> L) <bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>; Dave Urschatz <
> dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Very well said. Let me amend it. Thanks.
>
>
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
> *From:* Lincoln Lavoie [mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>]
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 5:31 AM
> *To:* Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>
> *Cc:* Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN
> L) <bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>; Dave Urschatz <
> dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> It's not suppose to be "only bugs from beta testers," but beta testers are
> expected to be the primary source of bug reports.  During the beta period,
> no new tests or features would be added, only bug fixes.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Lincoln
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Trevor & Bryan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the interest in participating in Beta. It’s great to see the
> leaders stepping up.
>
>
>
> I think the quoted line meant to say that bugs encountered in beta have
> priority and the immediate attention, esp. if/when we have to choose.
> Another point is that during beta we have interests in stability as well,
> fixing non-critical bugs already known before the beta may cause more harm
> than good. That’s how I understood it as a developer.
>
>
>
> Lincoln, do you like to add comment as it’s from one of your suggestions?
>
>
>
> We can discuss & rephrase it as appropriate.
>
>
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
> *From:* Cooper, Trevor [mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:01 PM
> *To:* SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>;
> Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Dave Urschatz <
> dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>
>
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.
>
>
>
> “Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted
> during Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL
> reported bugs should be investigated and prioritized.
>
>
>
> /Trevor
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [
> mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>] *On Behalf Of *SULLIVAN,
> BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
> *To:* Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Dave Urschatz <
> dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> I added the table for beta participants.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bryan Sullivan | AT
>
>
>
> *From:* Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com
> <wenjing@huawei.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
> *To:* Dave Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie <
> lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <
> bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Here is the Beta test page:
> https:

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Tianhongbo]

Thanks

Hongbo

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Cooper, Trevor
Sent: 2017年8月18日 7:29
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Done https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta

Trevor

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 9:53 AM
To: Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Cc: Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com<mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com>>; 
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>; Dave 
Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Very well said. Let me amend it. Thanks.

Wenjing

From: Lincoln Lavoie [mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 5:31 AM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>>
Cc: Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com<mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com>>; 
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>; Dave 
Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

It's not suppose to be "only bugs from beta testers," but beta testers are 
expected to be the primary source of bug reports.  During the beta period, no 
new tests or features would be added, only bug fixes.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Wenjing Chu 
<wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>> wrote:
Trevor & Bryan,

Thanks for the interest in participating in Beta. It’s great to see the leaders 
stepping up.

I think the quoted line meant to say that bugs encountered in beta have 
priority and the immediate attention, esp. if/when we have to choose. Another 
point is that during beta we have interests in stability as well, fixing 
non-critical bugs already known before the beta may cause more harm than good. 
That’s how I understood it as a developer.

Lincoln, do you like to add comment as it’s from one of your suggestions?

We can discuss & rephrase it as appropriate.

Wenjing

From: Cooper, Trevor 
[mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com<mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:01 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>; 
Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>>; Dave 
Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; Lincoln 
Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>

Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.

“Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted during 
Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL reported bugs 
should be investigated and prioritized.

/Trevor

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>>; Dave 
Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; Lincoln 
Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added the table for beta participants.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: Dave Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Here is the Beta test page: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta<https://urldefense.proofpoint

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Weekly meeting agenda 8/18

[Cooper, Trevor]

I have updated the list of documents, there are still a number that need 
significant work before launch  
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+%28Danube%29+Documentation+for+Review

/Trevor

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 11:11 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Weekly meeting agenda 8/18

Hi Dovetailers

We have a lot on agenda this week. Time may be tight, so please prepare ahead 
of time.


-  Cvp web portal plan review  ~20 min.

-  A quick status on dovetaill 0.5 release (feature freeze) ~ 15 min

-  Documentation: addendum, and the full list that still need to be 
merged  ~15 min

-  Beta draft plan ~10 min

Any other suggestions/comments ? Thanks.

Regards
Wenjing
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Cooper, Trevor]

Done https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta

Trevor

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 9:53 AM
To: Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
Cc: Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>; Dave Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Very well said. Let me amend it. Thanks.

Wenjing

From: Lincoln Lavoie [mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 5:31 AM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>>
Cc: Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com<mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com>>; 
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>; Dave 
Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

It's not suppose to be "only bugs from beta testers," but beta testers are 
expected to be the primary source of bug reports.  During the beta period, no 
new tests or features would be added, only bug fixes.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Wenjing Chu 
<wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>> wrote:
Trevor & Bryan,

Thanks for the interest in participating in Beta. It’s great to see the leaders 
stepping up.

I think the quoted line meant to say that bugs encountered in beta have 
priority and the immediate attention, esp. if/when we have to choose. Another 
point is that during beta we have interests in stability as well, fixing 
non-critical bugs already known before the beta may cause more harm than good. 
That’s how I understood it as a developer.

Lincoln, do you like to add comment as it’s from one of your suggestions?

We can discuss & rephrase it as appropriate.

Wenjing

From: Cooper, Trevor 
[mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com<mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:01 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>; 
Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>>; Dave 
Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; Lincoln 
Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>

Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.

“Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted during 
Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL reported bugs 
should be investigated and prioritized.

/Trevor

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>>; Dave 
Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; Lincoln 
Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added the table for beta participants.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: Dave Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Here is the Beta test page: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_display_dovetail_Dovetail-2BBeta=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0=v9curOpTMUn7PlLbVHRqXlFJZJ275Ip0Q09llzCX4dI=0kagZLID-U737LKkt3XcjnqiEd5jSAxLtDcRofH-Yys=>
I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please let me know 
if I missed anything. Additional comments welcome and we’ll discuss in this 
week’s call.
Again, thanks Bryan and Lincoln for your suggestions.

Dave,
On your first two points, please refer to the above wiki page.
For the third point, yes, current 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Wenjing Chu]

Very well said. Let me amend it. Thanks.

Wenjing

From: Lincoln Lavoie [mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 5:31 AM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>
Cc: Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>; Dave Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

It's not suppose to be "only bugs from beta testers," but beta testers are 
expected to be the primary source of bug reports.  During the beta period, no 
new tests or features would be added, only bug fixes.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Wenjing Chu 
<wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>> wrote:
Trevor & Bryan,

Thanks for the interest in participating in Beta. It’s great to see the leaders 
stepping up.

I think the quoted line meant to say that bugs encountered in beta have 
priority and the immediate attention, esp. if/when we have to choose. Another 
point is that during beta we have interests in stability as well, fixing 
non-critical bugs already known before the beta may cause more harm than good. 
That’s how I understood it as a developer.

Lincoln, do you like to add comment as it’s from one of your suggestions?

We can discuss & rephrase it as appropriate.

Wenjing

From: Cooper, Trevor 
[mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com<mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:01 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>; 
Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>>; Dave 
Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; Lincoln 
Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>

Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.

“Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted during 
Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL reported bugs 
should be investigated and prioritized.

/Trevor

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>>; Dave 
Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; Lincoln 
Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added the table for beta participants.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: Dave Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Here is the Beta test page: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_display_dovetail_Dovetail-2BBeta=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0=v9curOpTMUn7PlLbVHRqXlFJZJ275Ip0Q09llzCX4dI=0kagZLID-U737LKkt3XcjnqiEd5jSAxLtDcRofH-Yys=>
I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please let me know 
if I missed anything. Additional comments welcome and we’ll discuss in this 
week’s call.
Again, thanks Bryan and Lincoln for your suggestions.

Dave,
On your first two points, please refer to the above wiki page.
For the third point, yes, current testing assumes Pharos pods for the system 
under test.

Wenjing

From: Wenjing Chu
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:47 PM
To: 'Dave Urschatz' <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Just an ack that I’ll be populating a wiki page today incorporating discussions 
at last Friday’s call and some of comments in th

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Lincoln Lavoie]

It's not suppose to be "only bugs from beta testers," but beta testers are
expected to be the primary source of bug reports.  During the beta period,
no new tests or features would be added, only bug fixes.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com> wrote:

> Trevor & Bryan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the interest in participating in Beta. It’s great to see the
> leaders stepping up.
>
>
>
> I think the quoted line meant to say that bugs encountered in beta have
> priority and the immediate attention, esp. if/when we have to choose.
> Another point is that during beta we have interests in stability as well,
> fixing non-critical bugs already known before the beta may cause more harm
> than good. That’s how I understood it as a developer.
>
>
>
> Lincoln, do you like to add comment as it’s from one of your suggestions?
>
>
>
> We can discuss & rephrase it as appropriate.
>
>
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
> *From:* Cooper, Trevor [mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:01 PM
> *To:* SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>;
> Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Dave Urschatz <
> dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.
>
>
>
> “Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted
> during Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL
> reported bugs should be investigated and prioritized.
>
>
>
> /Trevor
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [
> mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>] *On Behalf Of *SULLIVAN,
> BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
> *To:* Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Dave Urschatz <
> dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> I added the table for beta participants.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bryan Sullivan | AT
>
>
>
> *From:* Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com
> <wenjing@huawei.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
> *To:* Dave Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie <
> lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <
> bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Here is the Beta test page: https://wiki.opnfv.org/
> display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_display_dovetail_Dovetail-2BBeta=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0=v9curOpTMUn7PlLbVHRqXlFJZJ275Ip0Q09llzCX4dI=0kagZLID-U737LKkt3XcjnqiEd5jSAxLtDcRofH-Yys=>
>
> I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please let me
> know if I missed anything. Additional comments welcome and we’ll discuss in
> this week’s call.
>
> Again, thanks Bryan and Lincoln for your suggestions.
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> On your first two points, please refer to the above wiki page.
>
> For the third point, yes, current testing assumes Pharos pods for the
> system under test.
>
>
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
> *From:* Wenjing Chu
> *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 4:47 PM
> *To:* 'Dave Urschatz' <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie <
> lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <
> bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Just an ack that I’ll be populating a wiki page today incorporating
> discussions at last Friday’s call and some of comments in this thread.
>
> Thanks for all the inputs.
>
>
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [
> mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>] *On Behalf Of *Dave Urschatz
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 10:39 AM
> *To:* Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <
> bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
&g

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Wenjing Chu]

Trevor & Bryan,

Thanks for the interest in participating in Beta. It’s great to see the leaders 
stepping up.

I think the quoted line meant to say that bugs encountered in beta have 
priority and the immediate attention, esp. if/when we have to choose. Another 
point is that during beta we have interests in stability as well, fixing 
non-critical bugs already known before the beta may cause more harm than good. 
That’s how I understood it as a developer.

Lincoln, do you like to add comment as it’s from one of your suggestions?

We can discuss & rephrase it as appropriate.

Wenjing

From: Cooper, Trevor [mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:01 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>; Wenjing Chu 
<wenjing@huawei.com>; Dave Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln 
Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.

“Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted during 
Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL reported bugs 
should be investigated and prioritized.

/Trevor

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com<mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>>; Dave 
Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; Lincoln 
Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added the table for beta participants.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: Dave Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Here is the Beta test page: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_display_dovetail_Dovetail-2BBeta=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0=v9curOpTMUn7PlLbVHRqXlFJZJ275Ip0Q09llzCX4dI=0kagZLID-U737LKkt3XcjnqiEd5jSAxLtDcRofH-Yys=>
I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please let me know 
if I missed anything. Additional comments welcome and we’ll discuss in this 
week’s call.
Again, thanks Bryan and Lincoln for your suggestions.

Dave,
On your first two points, please refer to the above wiki page.
For the third point, yes, current testing assumes Pharos pods for the system 
under test.

Wenjing

From: Wenjing Chu
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:47 PM
To: 'Dave Urschatz' <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Just an ack that I’ll be populating a wiki page today incorporating discussions 
at last Friday’s call and some of comments in this thread.
Thanks for all the inputs.

Wenjing

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Urschatz
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:39 AM
To: Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; 
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I missed the call today also.

  *   What timeframe are we planning this for?
  *   How long would the trial be?
  *   Bare Metal Pharos PODs only?  (I think this is yes but want to confirm.)

Best Regards,
Dave

Dave Urschatz
Senior Technical Lead
[cid:image001.jpg@01D316E5.72FF4450]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cengn.ca_=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0=v9curOp

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Cooper, Trevor]

I added Intel to the table as offering a Pharos POD for the beta trial.

“Only bugs submitted by the beta testers will be reviewed and accepted during 
Beta” … why would we only fix bugs reported by beta testers? ALL reported bugs 
should be investigated and prioritized.

/Trevor

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:14 AM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Dave Urschatz 
<dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I added the table for beta participants.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: Dave Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Here is the Beta test page: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_display_dovetail_Dovetail-2BBeta=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0=v9curOpTMUn7PlLbVHRqXlFJZJ275Ip0Q09llzCX4dI=0kagZLID-U737LKkt3XcjnqiEd5jSAxLtDcRofH-Yys=>
I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please let me know 
if I missed anything. Additional comments welcome and we’ll discuss in this 
week’s call.
Again, thanks Bryan and Lincoln for your suggestions.

Dave,
On your first two points, please refer to the above wiki page.
For the third point, yes, current testing assumes Pharos pods for the system 
under test.

Wenjing

From: Wenjing Chu
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:47 PM
To: 'Dave Urschatz' <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Just an ack that I’ll be populating a wiki page today incorporating discussions 
at last Friday’s call and some of comments in this thread.
Thanks for all the inputs.

Wenjing

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Urschatz
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:39 AM
To: Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; 
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I missed the call today also.

  *   What timeframe are we planning this for?
  *   How long would the trial be?
  *   Bare Metal Pharos PODs only?  (I think this is yes but want to confirm.)

Best Regards,
Dave

Dave Urschatz
Senior Technical Lead
[cid:image001.jpg@01D316C1.833E8C50]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cengn.ca_=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0=v9curOpTMUn7PlLbVHRqXlFJZJ275Ip0Q09llzCX4dI=0P_h6U9LBNif0kZMknVIfAog3vlWe-ytlJS1Tm3zbTA=>
555 Legget Drive| Tower A | Suite 600| Ottawa ON | K2K 2X3 | 613-963-1201


From: 
<opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>>
 on behalf of Lincon Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:16 AM
To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)" 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>" 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

And 3rd party labs. :)

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>> wrote:
And before I forget, we should also allow end-users to participate in the beta 
program of course!

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

-Original Message-
From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 8:04 AM
To: 'Lincoln Lavoie'

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)]

I added the table for beta participants.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: Dave Urschatz <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie 
<lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Here is the Beta test page: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_display_dovetail_Dovetail-2BBeta=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0=v9curOpTMUn7PlLbVHRqXlFJZJ275Ip0Q09llzCX4dI=0kagZLID-U737LKkt3XcjnqiEd5jSAxLtDcRofH-Yys=>
I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please let me know 
if I missed anything. Additional comments welcome and we’ll discuss in this 
week’s call.
Again, thanks Bryan and Lincoln for your suggestions.

Dave,
On your first two points, please refer to the above wiki page.
For the third point, yes, current testing assumes Pharos pods for the system 
under test.

Wenjing

From: Wenjing Chu
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:47 PM
To: 'Dave Urschatz' <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca<mailto:dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>>; 
Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Just an ack that I’ll be populating a wiki page today incorporating discussions 
at last Friday’s call and some of comments in this thread.
Thanks for all the inputs.

Wenjing

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Urschatz
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:39 AM
To: Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; 
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I missed the call today also.

  *   What timeframe are we planning this for?
  *   How long would the trial be?
  *   Bare Metal Pharos PODs only?  (I think this is yes but want to confirm.)

Best Regards,
Dave

Dave Urschatz
Senior Technical Lead
[cid:image001.jpg@01D31678.61A55C70]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cengn.ca_=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0=v9curOpTMUn7PlLbVHRqXlFJZJ275Ip0Q09llzCX4dI=0P_h6U9LBNif0kZMknVIfAog3vlWe-ytlJS1Tm3zbTA=>
555 Legget Drive| Tower A | Suite 600| Ottawa ON | K2K 2X3 | 613-963-1201


From: 
<opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>>
 on behalf of Lincon Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:16 AM
To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)" 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>" 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

And 3rd party labs. :)

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>> wrote:
And before I forget, we should also allow end-users to participate in the beta 
program of course!

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

-Original Message-
From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 8:04 AM
To: 'Lincoln Lavoie' <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; 
Christopher Price 
<christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Wenjing is going to add a page where we can document the plans and results for 
the beta program. Here’s what I suggested:
• We freeze the CVP suite and Dovetail tools prior to start of the beta
• We offer all OPNFV vendor members who produce commercial platforms that are 
applicable the chance to run the tests against their product and produce 
results provided back to OPNFV (in the form that CVP result reviewers will be 
expected to assess)
• We get C to provide a team of result reviewers for the beta
• On the wiki we build a table of those vendors

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Wenjing Chu]

Here is the Beta test page: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Beta
I think I summarized most of the comments I received so far. Please let me know 
if I missed anything. Additional comments welcome and we’ll discuss in this 
week’s call.
Again, thanks Bryan and Lincoln for your suggestions.

Dave,
On your first two points, please refer to the above wiki page.
For the third point, yes, current testing assumes Pharos pods for the system 
under test.

Wenjing

From: Wenjing Chu
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:47 PM
To: 'Dave Urschatz' <dave.ursch...@cengn.ca>; Lincoln Lavoie 
<lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Just an ack that I’ll be populating a wiki page today incorporating discussions 
at last Friday’s call and some of comments in this thread.
Thanks for all the inputs.

Wenjing

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Urschatz
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:39 AM
To: Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; 
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I missed the call today also.

·What timeframe are we planning this for?

·How long would the trial be?

·Bare Metal Pharos PODs only?  (I think this is yes but want to 
confirm.)

Best Regards,
Dave

Dave Urschatz
Senior Technical Lead
[cid:image001.jpg@01D3154E.C7AE7D10]<http://cengn.ca/>
555 Legget Drive| Tower A | Suite 600| Ottawa ON | K2K 2X3 | 613-963-1201


From: 
<opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>>
 on behalf of Lincon Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:16 AM
To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)" 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>" 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

And 3rd party labs. :)

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>> wrote:
And before I forget, we should also allow end-users to participate in the beta 
program of course!

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

-Original Message-
From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 8:04 AM
To: 'Lincoln Lavoie' <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; 
Christopher Price 
<christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Wenjing is going to add a page where we can document the plans and results for 
the beta program. Here’s what I suggested:
• We freeze the CVP suite and Dovetail tools prior to start of the beta
• We offer all OPNFV vendor members who produce commercial platforms that are 
applicable the chance to run the tests against their product and produce 
results provided back to OPNFV (in the form that CVP result reviewers will be 
expected to assess)
• We get C to provide a team of result reviewers for the beta
• On the wiki we build a table of those vendors who plan to do this, the 
results of the tests as assessed by the team, and any feedback of the vendor 
(sub-pages as needed depending upon the amount of feedback)
• We do not release until both Dovetail and C are satisfied with the beta 
results, e.g. for scope (# of vendors participating) and results (reliability 
of the test suite/tools, and rate of compliance success)

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>]
 On Behalf Of Lincoln Lavoie
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:40 AM
To: Christopher Price 
<christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Chris,

We talked about this at the very end of the call, and I think it's in 
alignment.  I think we just 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Wenjing Chu]

Just an ack that I’ll be populating a wiki page today incorporating discussions 
at last Friday’s call and some of comments in this thread.
Thanks for all the inputs.

Wenjing

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Urschatz
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:39 AM
To: Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

I missed the call today also.

·What timeframe are we planning this for?

·How long would the trial be?

·Bare Metal Pharos PODs only?  (I think this is yes but want to 
confirm.)

Best Regards,
Dave

Dave Urschatz
Senior Technical Lead
[cid:image001.jpg@01D3151C.E79D7540]<http://cengn.ca/>
555 Legget Drive| Tower A | Suite 600| Ottawa ON | K2K 2X3 | 613-963-1201


From: 
<opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>>
 on behalf of Lincon Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:16 AM
To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)" 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>>
Cc: 
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>" 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

And 3rd party labs. :)

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>> wrote:
And before I forget, we should also allow end-users to participate in the beta 
program of course!

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

-Original Message-
From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 8:04 AM
To: 'Lincoln Lavoie' <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; 
Christopher Price 
<christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Wenjing is going to add a page where we can document the plans and results for 
the beta program. Here’s what I suggested:
• We freeze the CVP suite and Dovetail tools prior to start of the beta
• We offer all OPNFV vendor members who produce commercial platforms that are 
applicable the chance to run the tests against their product and produce 
results provided back to OPNFV (in the form that CVP result reviewers will be 
expected to assess)
• We get C to provide a team of result reviewers for the beta
• On the wiki we build a table of those vendors who plan to do this, the 
results of the tests as assessed by the team, and any feedback of the vendor 
(sub-pages as needed depending upon the amount of feedback)
• We do not release until both Dovetail and C are satisfied with the beta 
results, e.g. for scope (# of vendors participating) and results (reliability 
of the test suite/tools, and rate of compliance success)

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>]
 On Behalf Of Lincoln Lavoie
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:40 AM
To: Christopher Price 
<christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Chris,

We talked about this at the very end of the call, and I think it's in 
alignment.  I think we just need to write down the "rules" for the beta trial 
period, and get people signed up to participate in that process.  In other 
groups, I've seen the "cookie" to get that is the beta users would be the first 
users listed as "certified" and the organization would provide some press / 
media coverage to promote that accomplishment.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Christopher Price 
<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>> 
wrote:
Sounds like a good approach Lincoln.  It would be nice to see how something 
like that fits into our current activities.  Sorry I couldn’t be on the call to 
discuss it today, finding myself a little over scheduled at the moment.

/ Chris

From: Lincoln Lavoie <mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:01
To: Christopher Price 
<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@eri

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Dave Urschatz]

I missed the call today also.

· What timeframe are we planning this for?

· How long would the trial be?

· Bare Metal Pharos PODs only?  (I think this is yes but want to 
confirm.)

Best Regards,
Dave

Dave Urschatz
Senior Technical Lead
[cid:image001.jpg@01D312A7.37C852B0]<http://cengn.ca/>
555 Legget Drive| Tower A | Suite 600| Ottawa ON | K2K 2X3 | 613-963-1201


From: <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> on behalf of Lincon Lavoie 
<lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:16 AM
To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)" <bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>
Cc: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

And 3rd party labs. :)

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
<bryan.sulli...@research.att.com<mailto:bryan.sulli...@research.att.com>> wrote:
And before I forget, we should also allow end-users to participate in the beta 
program of course!

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

-Original Message-
From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 8:04 AM
To: 'Lincoln Lavoie' <lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>; 
Christopher Price 
<christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Wenjing is going to add a page where we can document the plans and results for 
the beta program. Here’s what I suggested:
• We freeze the CVP suite and Dovetail tools prior to start of the beta
• We offer all OPNFV vendor members who produce commercial platforms that are 
applicable the chance to run the tests against their product and produce 
results provided back to OPNFV (in the form that CVP result reviewers will be 
expected to assess)
• We get C to provide a team of result reviewers for the beta
• On the wiki we build a table of those vendors who plan to do this, the 
results of the tests as assessed by the team, and any feedback of the vendor 
(sub-pages as needed depending upon the amount of feedback)
• We do not release until both Dovetail and C are satisfied with the beta 
results, e.g. for scope (# of vendors participating) and results (reliability 
of the test suite/tools, and rate of compliance success)

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>]
 On Behalf Of Lincoln Lavoie
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:40 AM
To: Christopher Price 
<christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Chris,

We talked about this at the very end of the call, and I think it's in 
alignment.  I think we just need to write down the "rules" for the beta trial 
period, and get people signed up to participate in that process.  In other 
groups, I've seen the "cookie" to get that is the beta users would be the first 
users listed as "certified" and the organization would provide some press / 
media coverage to promote that accomplishment.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Christopher Price 
<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>> 
wrote:
Sounds like a good approach Lincoln.  It would be nice to see how something 
like that fits into our current activities.  Sorry I couldn’t be on the call to 
discuss it today, finding myself a little over scheduled at the moment.

/ Chris

From: Lincoln Lavoie <mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:01
To: Christopher Price 
<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: Tianhongbo 
<mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com<mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>>, 
TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Chris,

What I've seen other programs do for trials/launch is the following:

1. Freeze the development of new work
2. A group of companies or users would volunteer to be beta trial testers, 
submitting feedback / bugs
3. Only bug fixes from those beta "customers" are reviewed and accepted.
4. We need to decide the beta outcome requirements (i.e. all customers are 
passing, all tests run, etc).
5. Once that outcome mark is hit, that version would be considered the version 
subm

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Lincoln Lavoie]

And 3rd party labs. :)

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) <
bryan.sulli...@research.att.com> wrote:

> And before I forget, we should also allow end-users to participate in the
> beta program of course!
>
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT
>
> -Original Message-
> From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 8:04 AM
> To: 'Lincoln Lavoie' <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; Christopher Price <
> christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
> Wenjing is going to add a page where we can document the plans and results
> for the beta program. Here’s what I suggested:
> • We freeze the CVP suite and Dovetail tools prior to start of the beta
> • We offer all OPNFV vendor members who produce commercial platforms that
> are applicable the chance to run the tests against their product and
> produce results provided back to OPNFV (in the form that CVP result
> reviewers will be expected to assess)
> • We get C to provide a team of result reviewers for the beta
> • On the wiki we build a table of those vendors who plan to do this, the
> results of the tests as assessed by the team, and any feedback of the
> vendor (sub-pages as needed depending upon the amount of feedback)
> • We do not release until both Dovetail and C are satisfied with the
> beta results, e.g. for scope (# of vendors participating) and results
> (reliability of the test suite/tools, and rate of compliance success)
>
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT
>
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Lincoln Lavoie
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:40 AM
> To: Christopher Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> We talked about this at the very end of the call, and I think it's in
> alignment.  I think we just need to write down the "rules" for the beta
> trial period, and get people signed up to participate in that process.  In
> other groups, I've seen the "cookie" to get that is the beta users would be
> the first users listed as "certified" and the organization would provide
> some press / media coverage to promote that accomplishment.
>
> Cheers,
> Lincoln
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Christopher Price  christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Sounds like a good approach Lincoln.  It would be nice to see how
> something like that fits into our current activities.  Sorry I couldn’t be
> on the call to discuss it today, finding myself a little over scheduled at
> the moment.
>
> / Chris
>
> From: Lincoln Lavoie <mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
> Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:01
> To: Christopher Price <mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
> Cc: Tianhongbo <mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> What I've seen other programs do for trials/launch is the following:
>
> 1. Freeze the development of new work
> 2. A group of companies or users would volunteer to be beta trial testers,
> submitting feedback / bugs
> 3. Only bug fixes from those beta "customers" are reviewed and accepted.
> 4. We need to decide the beta outcome requirements (i.e. all customers are
> passing, all tests run, etc).
> 5. Once that outcome mark is hit, that version would be considered the
> version submitted for approval.
>
> Cheers,
> Lincoln
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Christopher Price  christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi Hongbo,
>
> Thanks, I’ve seen the information on the wiki.
> I guess the questions I have relates more to:  Once we have the tool in a
> ready state, do we have a plan to validate it against volunteer commercial
> systems prior to having the TSC vote and making it generally available?  I
> didn’t see that information on the wiki page, maybe I missed it?
>
> / Chris
>
> From: Tianhongbo <mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>
> Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 11:05
> To: Christopher Price <mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>,
> TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> Subject: RE: [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> Here is the page for recoding the history of this. We can discuss further.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.
> opnfv.org_display_dove

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)]

And before I forget, we should also allow end-users to participate in the beta 
program of course!

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

-Original Message-
From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L) 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 8:04 AM
To: 'Lincoln Lavoie' <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; Christopher Price 
<christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Wenjing is going to add a page where we can document the plans and results for 
the beta program. Here’s what I suggested:
• We freeze the CVP suite and Dovetail tools prior to start of the beta
• We offer all OPNFV vendor members who produce commercial platforms that are 
applicable the chance to run the tests against their product and produce 
results provided back to OPNFV (in the form that CVP result reviewers will be 
expected to assess)
• We get C to provide a team of result reviewers for the beta
• On the wiki we build a table of those vendors who plan to do this, the 
results of the tests as assessed by the team, and any feedback of the vendor 
(sub-pages as needed depending upon the amount of feedback)
• We do not release until both Dovetail and C are satisfied with the beta 
results, e.g. for scope (# of vendors participating) and results (reliability 
of the test suite/tools, and rate of compliance success)

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Lincoln Lavoie
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:40 AM
To: Christopher Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Chris,

We talked about this at the very end of the call, and I think it's in 
alignment.  I think we just need to write down the "rules" for the beta trial 
period, and get people signed up to participate in that process.  In other 
groups, I've seen the "cookie" to get that is the beta users would be the first 
users listed as "certified" and the organization would provide some press / 
media coverage to promote that accomplishment.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Christopher Price 
<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> wrote:
Sounds like a good approach Lincoln.  It would be nice to see how something 
like that fits into our current activities.  Sorry I couldn’t be on the call to 
discuss it today, finding myself a little over scheduled at the moment. 
 
/ Chris
 
From: Lincoln Lavoie <mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:01
To: Christopher Price <mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
Cc: Tianhongbo <mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
 
Hi Chris, 
 
What I've seen other programs do for trials/launch is the following:
 
1. Freeze the development of new work
2. A group of companies or users would volunteer to be beta trial testers, 
submitting feedback / bugs
3. Only bug fixes from those beta "customers" are reviewed and accepted.
4. We need to decide the beta outcome requirements (i.e. all customers are 
passing, all tests run, etc).
5. Once that outcome mark is hit, that version would be considered the version 
submitted for approval.
 
Cheers,
Lincoln
 
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Christopher Price 
<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi Hongbo,
 
Thanks, I’ve seen the information on the wiki.
I guess the questions I have relates more to:  Once we have the tool in a ready 
state, do we have a plan to validate it against volunteer commercial systems 
prior to having the TSC vote and making it generally available?  I didn’t see 
that information on the wiki page, maybe I missed it?
 
/ Chris
 
From: Tianhongbo <mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 11:05
To: Christopher Price <mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>, TECH-DISCUSS 
OPNFV <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
 
Hi Chris:
 
Here is the page for recoding the history of this. We can discuss further.
 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_display_dovetail_Running-2Bhistory-2Bfor-2Bthe-2Bdovetail-2Btool=DwMFaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0=-dwHgwLsTeowK_964D_XAiwPPle4hOsXb81wp9M4rjI=G6rTJNQcAfoxUGn85uFP2BFvW7yxOA-a5DF7tkl_Ex0=
 
Best regards
 
hongbo
 
From: mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of 
Christopher Price
Sent: 2017年8月11日 16:55
To: mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
 
Hi Guys,
 
Do we have a time-plan for the remain

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (BRYAN L)]

Wenjing is going to add a page where we can document the plans and results for 
the beta program. Here’s what I suggested:
• We freeze the CVP suite and Dovetail tools prior to start of the beta
• We offer all OPNFV vendor members who produce commercial platforms that are 
applicable the chance to run the tests against their product and produce 
results provided back to OPNFV (in the form that CVP result reviewers will be 
expected to assess)
• We get C to provide a team of result reviewers for the beta
• On the wiki we build a table of those vendors who plan to do this, the 
results of the tests as assessed by the team, and any feedback of the vendor 
(sub-pages as needed depending upon the amount of feedback)
• We do not release until both Dovetail and C are satisfied with the beta 
results, e.g. for scope (# of vendors participating) and results (reliability 
of the test suite/tools, and rate of compliance success)

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Lincoln Lavoie
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:40 AM
To: Christopher Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Chris,

We talked about this at the very end of the call, and I think it's in 
alignment.  I think we just need to write down the "rules" for the beta trial 
period, and get people signed up to participate in that process.  In other 
groups, I've seen the "cookie" to get that is the beta users would be the first 
users listed as "certified" and the organization would provide some press / 
media coverage to promote that accomplishment.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Christopher Price 
<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> wrote:
Sounds like a good approach Lincoln.  It would be nice to see how something 
like that fits into our current activities.  Sorry I couldn’t be on the call to 
discuss it today, finding myself a little over scheduled at the moment. 
 
/ Chris
 
From: Lincoln Lavoie <mailto:lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:01
To: Christopher Price <mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
Cc: Tianhongbo <mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
 
Hi Chris, 
 
What I've seen other programs do for trials/launch is the following:
 
1. Freeze the development of new work
2. A group of companies or users would volunteer to be beta trial testers, 
submitting feedback / bugs
3. Only bug fixes from those beta "customers" are reviewed and accepted.
4. We need to decide the beta outcome requirements (i.e. all customers are 
passing, all tests run, etc).
5. Once that outcome mark is hit, that version would be considered the version 
submitted for approval.
 
Cheers,
Lincoln
 
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Christopher Price 
<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi Hongbo,
 
Thanks, I’ve seen the information on the wiki.
I guess the questions I have relates more to:  Once we have the tool in a ready 
state, do we have a plan to validate it against volunteer commercial systems 
prior to having the TSC vote and making it generally available?  I didn’t see 
that information on the wiki page, maybe I missed it?
 
/ Chris
 
From: Tianhongbo <mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 11:05
To: Christopher Price <mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>, TECH-DISCUSS 
OPNFV <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
 
Hi Chris:
 
Here is the page for recoding the history of this. We can discuss further.
 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_display_dovetail_Running-2Bhistory-2Bfor-2Bthe-2Bdovetail-2Btool=DwMFaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=ML-JPRZQOfToJjMwlJLPlcWimAEwMA5DZGNIrk-cgy0=-dwHgwLsTeowK_964D_XAiwPPle4hOsXb81wp9M4rjI=G6rTJNQcAfoxUGn85uFP2BFvW7yxOA-a5DF7tkl_Ex0=
 
Best regards
 
hongbo
 
From: mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of 
Christopher Price
Sent: 2017年8月11日 16:55
To: mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
 
Hi Guys,
 
Do we have a time-plan for the remaining work?  
 
I see we still have a lot of documentation work to do and the test cases are in 
flux, but we have other things to do as well.
-  Do we intend to test/validate the documentation in any way with 
community scenario’s prior to merging it?  
o   Do we have people, resources and time-plans for that?
-  Will we arrange to test the toolchain against volunteer commercial 
systems in labs prior to making it available fo

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Lincoln Lavoie]

Hi Chris,

We talked about this at the very end of the call, and I think it's in
alignment.  I think we just need to write down the "rules" for the beta
trial period, and get people signed up to participate in that process.  In
other groups, I've seen the "cookie" to get that is the beta users would be
the first users listed as "certified" and the organization would provide
some press / media coverage to promote that accomplishment.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Christopher Price <
christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Sounds like a good approach Lincoln.  It would be nice to see how
> something like that fits into our current activities.  Sorry I couldn’t be
> on the call to discuss it today, finding myself a little over scheduled at
> the moment.
>
>
>
> / Chris
>
>
>
> *From: *Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
> *Date: *Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:01
> *To: *Christopher Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
> *Cc: *Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> What I've seen other programs do for trials/launch is the following:
>
>
>
> 1. Freeze the development of new work
>
> 2. A group of companies or users would volunteer to be beta trial testers,
> submitting feedback / bugs
>
> 3. Only bug fixes from those beta "customers" are reviewed and accepted.
>
> 4. We need to decide the beta outcome requirements (i.e. all customers are
> passing, all tests run, etc).
>
> 5. Once that outcome mark is hit, that version would be considered the
> version submitted for approval.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Lincoln
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Christopher Price <
> christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Hongbo,
>
>
>
> Thanks, I’ve seen the information on the wiki.
>
> I guess the questions I have relates more to:  Once we have the tool in a
> ready state, do we have a plan to validate it against volunteer commercial
> systems prior to having the TSC vote and making it generally available?  I
> didn’t see that information on the wiki page, maybe I missed it?
>
>
>
> / Chris
>
>
>
> *From: *Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 11 August 2017 at 11:05
> *To: *Christopher Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>, TECH-DISCUSS
> OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> *Subject: *RE: [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Hi Chris:
>
>
>
> Here is the page for recoding the history of this. We can discuss further.
>
>
>
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Running+
> history+for+the+dovetail+tool
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> hongbo
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Christopher
> Price
> *Sent:* 2017年8月11日 16:55
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> Do we have a time-plan for the remaining work?
>
>
>
> I see we still have a lot of documentation work to do and the test cases
> are in flux, but we have other things to do as well.
>
> -  Do we intend to test/validate the documentation in any way
> with community scenario’s prior to merging it?
>
> o   Do we have people, resources and time-plans for that?
>
> -  Will we arrange to test the toolchain against volunteer
> commercial systems in labs prior to making it available for use?
>
> o   Same as above; people, resources, time-plans?
>
>
>
> I can also see the links are all pointing to “artifact.opnfv.org” which
> is not I assume where we intend to publish the documentation.
>
>
>
> Would be good to see how these items line up during the status review and
> remaining milestones discussion.
>
>
>
> / Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> on behalf of Trevor
> Cooper <trevor.coo...@intel.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 11 August 2017 at 09:29
> *To: *TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Thanks Wenjing. I have updated the docs tracking page, lets review this
> for accuracy and highlight where reviews are most needed
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Documentation+for+Review
> …
>
>
>
> /Trevor
>
>
&g

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Christopher Price]

Sounds like a good approach Lincoln.  It would be nice to see how something 
like that fits into our current activities.  Sorry I couldn’t be on the call to 
discuss it today, finding myself a little over scheduled at the moment.

/ Chris

From: Lincoln Lavoie <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:01
To: Christopher Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
Cc: Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Chris,

What I've seen other programs do for trials/launch is the following:

1. Freeze the development of new work
2. A group of companies or users would volunteer to be beta trial testers, 
submitting feedback / bugs
3. Only bug fixes from those beta "customers" are reviewed and accepted.
4. We need to decide the beta outcome requirements (i.e. all customers are 
passing, all tests run, etc).
5. Once that outcome mark is hit, that version would be considered the version 
submitted for approval.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Christopher Price 
<christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi Hongbo,

Thanks, I’ve seen the information on the wiki.
I guess the questions I have relates more to:  Once we have the tool in a ready 
state, do we have a plan to validate it against volunteer commercial systems 
prior to having the TSC vote and making it generally available?  I didn’t see 
that information on the wiki page, maybe I missed it?

/ Chris

From: Tianhongbo 
<hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com<mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 11:05
To: Christopher Price 
<christopher.pr...@ericsson.com<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>, 
TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: RE: [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Chris:

Here is the page for recoding the history of this. We can discuss further.

https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Running+history+for+the+dovetail+tool

Best regards

hongbo

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>]
 On Behalf Of Christopher Price
Sent: 2017年8月11日 16:55
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Guys,

Do we have a time-plan for the remaining work?

I see we still have a lot of documentation work to do and the test cases are in 
flux, but we have other things to do as well.

-  Do we intend to test/validate the documentation in any way with 
community scenario’s prior to merging it?

o   Do we have people, resources and time-plans for that?

-  Will we arrange to test the toolchain against volunteer commercial 
systems in labs prior to making it available for use?

o   Same as above; people, resources, time-plans?

I can also see the links are all pointing to 
“artifact.opnfv.org<http://artifact.opnfv.org>” which is not I assume where we 
intend to publish the documentation.

Would be good to see how these items line up during the status review and 
remaining milestones discussion.

/ Chris


From: 
<opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>>
 on behalf of Trevor Cooper 
<trevor.coo...@intel.com<mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com>>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 09:29
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Thanks Wenjing. I have updated the docs tracking page, lets review this for 
accuracy and highlight where reviews are most needed 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Documentation+for+Review …

/Trevor


From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 9:14 AM
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Dovetailers,

Proposed agenda for this week’s call on Friday:


1)  Current tool+test status: (10 min)

a.  dovetail version 0.5

b.  Testing pod resources

2)  Docs, including the test case requirement patch 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/38763/1  -(10 min)

3)  Overall status review and plan for the remaining milestones.  (40 min) As 
the project is getting into shape, it’s good time for us to map out the 
remaining milestones and time tab

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Lincoln Lavoie]

Hi Chris,

What I've seen other programs do for trials/launch is the following:

1. Freeze the development of new work
2. A group of companies or users would volunteer to be beta trial testers,
submitting feedback / bugs
3. Only bug fixes from those beta "customers" are reviewed and accepted.
4. We need to decide the beta outcome requirements (i.e. all customers are
passing, all tests run, etc).
5. Once that outcome mark is hit, that version would be considered the
version submitted for approval.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Christopher Price <
christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi Hongbo,
>
>
>
> Thanks, I’ve seen the information on the wiki.
>
> I guess the questions I have relates more to:  Once we have the tool in a
> ready state, do we have a plan to validate it against volunteer commercial
> systems prior to having the TSC vote and making it generally available?  I
> didn’t see that information on the wiki page, maybe I missed it?
>
>
>
> / Chris
>
>
>
> *From: *Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 11 August 2017 at 11:05
> *To: *Christopher Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>, TECH-DISCUSS
> OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> *Subject: *RE: [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Hi Chris:
>
>
>
> Here is the page for recoding the history of this. We can discuss further.
>
>
>
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Running+
> history+for+the+dovetail+tool
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> hongbo
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Christopher
> Price
> *Sent:* 2017年8月11日 16:55
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> Do we have a time-plan for the remaining work?
>
>
>
> I see we still have a lot of documentation work to do and the test cases
> are in flux, but we have other things to do as well.
>
> -  Do we intend to test/validate the documentation in any way
> with community scenario’s prior to merging it?
>
> o   Do we have people, resources and time-plans for that?
>
> -  Will we arrange to test the toolchain against volunteer
> commercial systems in labs prior to making it available for use?
>
> o   Same as above; people, resources, time-plans?
>
>
>
> I can also see the links are all pointing to “artifact.opnfv.org” which
> is not I assume where we intend to publish the documentation.
>
>
>
> Would be good to see how these items line up during the status review and
> remaining milestones discussion.
>
>
>
> / Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> on behalf of Trevor
> Cooper <trevor.coo...@intel.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 11 August 2017 at 09:29
> *To: *TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Thanks Wenjing. I have updated the docs tracking page, lets review this
> for accuracy and highlight where reviews are most needed
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Documentation+for+Review
> …
>
>
>
> /Trevor
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [
> mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>] *On Behalf Of *Wenjing Chu
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2017 9:14 AM
> *To:* TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11
>
>
>
> Hi Dovetailers,
>
>
>
> Proposed agenda for this week’s call on Friday:
>
>
>
> 1)  Current tool+test status: (10 min)
>
> a.  dovetail version 0.5
>
> b.  Testing pod resources
>
> 2)  Docs, including the test case requirement patch
> https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/38763/1  -(10 min)
>
> 3)  Overall status review and plan for the remaining milestones.  (40
> min) As the project is getting into shape, it’s good time for us to map out
> the remaining milestones and time table.
>
>
>
> As always, let us know if you have comments/suggestions.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
>


-- 
***
*Lincoln Lavoie*
Senior Engi

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Christopher Price]

Hi Hongbo,

Thanks, I’ve seen the information on the wiki.
I guess the questions I have relates more to:  Once we have the tool in a ready 
state, do we have a plan to validate it against volunteer commercial systems 
prior to having the TSC vote and making it generally available?  I didn’t see 
that information on the wiki page, maybe I missed it?

/ Chris

From: Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 11:05
To: Christopher Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Chris:

Here is the page for recoding the history of this. We can discuss further.

https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Running+history+for+the+dovetail+tool

Best regards

hongbo

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Christopher 
Price
Sent: 2017年8月11日 16:55
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Guys,

Do we have a time-plan for the remaining work?

I see we still have a lot of documentation work to do and the test cases are in 
flux, but we have other things to do as well.

-  Do we intend to test/validate the documentation in any way with 
community scenario’s prior to merging it?

o   Do we have people, resources and time-plans for that?

-  Will we arrange to test the toolchain against volunteer commercial 
systems in labs prior to making it available for use?

o   Same as above; people, resources, time-plans?

I can also see the links are all pointing to “artifact.opnfv.org” which is not 
I assume where we intend to publish the documentation.

Would be good to see how these items line up during the status review and 
remaining milestones discussion.

/ Chris


From: 
<opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>>
 on behalf of Trevor Cooper 
<trevor.coo...@intel.com<mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com>>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 09:29
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Thanks Wenjing. I have updated the docs tracking page, lets review this for 
accuracy and highlight where reviews are most needed 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Documentation+for+Review …

/Trevor


From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 9:14 AM
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Dovetailers,

Proposed agenda for this week’s call on Friday:


1)  Current tool+test status: (10 min)

a.  dovetail version 0.5

b.  Testing pod resources

2)  Docs, including the test case requirement patch 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/38763/1  -(10 min)

3)  Overall status review and plan for the remaining milestones.  (40 min) As 
the project is getting into shape, it’s good time for us to map out the 
remaining milestones and time table.

As always, let us know if you have comments/suggestions.

Regards
Wenjing

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Tianhongbo]

Hi Chris:

Here is the page for recoding the history of this. We can discuss further.

https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Running+history+for+the+dovetail+tool

Best regards

hongbo

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Christopher 
Price
Sent: 2017年8月11日 16:55
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Guys,

Do we have a time-plan for the remaining work?

I see we still have a lot of documentation work to do and the test cases are in 
flux, but we have other things to do as well.

-  Do we intend to test/validate the documentation in any way with 
community scenario’s prior to merging it?

o   Do we have people, resources and time-plans for that?

-  Will we arrange to test the toolchain against volunteer commercial 
systems in labs prior to making it available for use?

o   Same as above; people, resources, time-plans?

I can also see the links are all pointing to “artifact.opnfv.org” which is not 
I assume where we intend to publish the documentation.

Would be good to see how these items line up during the status review and 
remaining milestones discussion.

/ Chris


From: 
<opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>>
 on behalf of Trevor Cooper 
<trevor.coo...@intel.com<mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com>>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 09:29
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Thanks Wenjing. I have updated the docs tracking page, lets review this for 
accuracy and highlight where reviews are most needed 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Documentation+for+Review …

/Trevor


From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 9:14 AM
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Dovetailers,

Proposed agenda for this week’s call on Friday:


1)  Current tool+test status: (10 min)

a.  dovetail version 0.5

b.  Testing pod resources

2)  Docs, including the test case requirement patch 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/38763/1  -(10 min)

3)  Overall status review and plan for the remaining milestones.  (40 min) As 
the project is getting into shape, it’s good time for us to map out the 
remaining milestones and time table.

As always, let us know if you have comments/suggestions.

Regards
Wenjing

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Christopher Price]

Hi Guys,

Do we have a time-plan for the remaining work?

I see we still have a lot of documentation work to do and the test cases are in 
flux, but we have other things to do as well.

-  Do we intend to test/validate the documentation in any way with 
community scenario’s prior to merging it?

oDo we have people, resources and time-plans for that?

-  Will we arrange to test the toolchain against volunteer commercial 
systems in labs prior to making it available for use?

oSame as above; people, resources, time-plans?

I can also see the links are all pointing to “artifact.opnfv.org” which is not 
I assume where we intend to publish the documentation.

Would be good to see how these items line up during the status review and 
remaining milestones discussion.

/ Chris

From: <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> on behalf of Trevor Cooper 
<trevor.coo...@intel.com>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2017 at 09:29
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Thanks Wenjing. I have updated the docs tracking page, lets review this for 
accuracy and highlight where reviews are most needed 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Documentation+for+Review …

/Trevor


From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 9:14 AM
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Dovetailers,

Proposed agenda for this week’s call on Friday:


1)  Current tool+test status: (10 min)

a.  dovetail version 0.5

b.  Testing pod resources

2)  Docs, including the test case requirement patch 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/38763/1  -(10 min)

3)  Overall status review and plan for the remaining milestones.  (40 min) As 
the project is getting into shape, it’s good time for us to map out the 
remaining milestones and time table.

As always, let us know if you have comments/suggestions.

Regards
Wenjing

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

[Cooper, Trevor]

Thanks Wenjing. I have updated the docs tracking page, lets review this for 
accuracy and highlight where reviews are most needed 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Documentation+for+Review ...

/Trevor


From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 9:14 AM
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly call agenda 8/11

Hi Dovetailers,

Proposed agenda for this week's call on Friday:


1)  Current tool+test status: (10 min)

a.   dovetail version 0.5

b.  Testing pod resources

2)  Docs, including the test case requirement patch 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/38763/1  -(10 min)

3)  Overall status review and plan for the remaining milestones.  (40 min) 
As the project is getting into shape, it's good time for us to map out the 
remaining milestones and time table.

As always, let us know if you have comments/suggestions.

Regards
Wenjing

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Request for a slot in tomorrow's weekly call

[SerenaFeng(zte)]

Hi Srikanth & Tim,

Thanks for sharing the slides, I am also looking forward to having a copy.

BRs
Serena

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:41 AM Srikanth Vavilapalli <
srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
> Attached the slide deck…
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Srikanth
>
>
>
> *From:* Zenghui Shi [mailto:z...@redhat.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 30, 2017 7:31 PM
>
>
> *To:* Srikanth Vavilapalli <srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com>
> *Cc:* Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Tianhongbo <
> hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Request for a slot in
> tomorrow's weekly call
>
>
>
> Hi Srikanth & Tim,
>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing the findings on test gaps in weekly dovetail meeting!
> Is it possible the slides can be shared so that anyone who's interested in
> can get to understand and follow-up on some of the test items?
>
> Regards,
> zenghui
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Srikanth Vavilapalli <
> srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> In tomorrow’s weekly call, Tim and myself (from Ericsson) wanted to share
> our findings on test gaps in basic cloud capability, security and High
> availability areas.
>
>
>
> Can you plz add to the agenda if we can get some time for this?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Srikanth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Request for a slot in tomorrow's weekly call

[Srikanth Vavilapalli]

Hi

Attached the slide deck…

Thanks
Srikanth

From: Zenghui Shi [mailto:z...@redhat.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 7:31 PM
To: Srikanth Vavilapalli <srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com>
Cc: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Tianhongbo 
<hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Request for a slot in tomorrow's 
weekly call

Hi Srikanth & Tim,

Thanks for sharing the findings on test gaps in weekly dovetail meeting!
Is it possible the slides can be shared so that anyone who's interested in can 
get to understand and follow-up on some of the test items?

Regards,
zenghui

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Srikanth Vavilapalli 
<srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com<mailto:srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com>> 
wrote:
Hi

In tomorrow’s weekly call, Tim and myself (from Ericsson) wanted to share our 
findings on test gaps in basic cloud capability, security and High availability 
areas.

Can you plz add to the agenda if we can get some time for this?

Thanks
Srikanth




___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss



OPNFV Dovetail.pptx
Description: OPNFV Dovetail.pptx
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Request for a slot in tomorrow's weekly call

[Zenghui Shi]

Hi Srikanth & Tim,

Thanks for sharing the findings on test gaps in weekly dovetail meeting!
Is it possible the slides can be shared so that anyone who's interested in
can get to understand and follow-up on some of the test items?

Regards,
zenghui


On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Srikanth Vavilapalli <
srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
> In tomorrow’s weekly call, Tim and myself (from Ericsson) wanted to share
> our findings on test gaps in basic cloud capability, security and High
> availability areas.
>
>
>
> Can you plz add to the agenda if we can get some time for this?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Srikanth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Request for a slot in tomorrow's weekly call

[Wenjing Chu]

Thanks for everyone on the call.

Here is a follow up on the ask of reviewing ETST TST to compare. This was done 
a few weeks ago and discussed briefly on the call. I put the notes I kept in 
the etherpad in case anyone is interested or like to comment/add: 
https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/collabrationofdovetail

Wenjing

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:chu.wenj...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 3:37 PM
To: Srikanth Vavilapalli <srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com>
Cc: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Tianhongbo 
<hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Request for a slot in tomorrow's 
weekly call

Thanks Srikanth. And sorry for being slow in sending out the agenda.

Here it is for this Friday:

(1) Review of gap analysis findings by Srikanth and Tim.
(2) Preliminary review of the workflow - I will submit the patch before the 
call.
(3) Needs more hands on the remaining docs. Review the list.

Thanks.
Wenjing

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Srikanth Vavilapalli 
<srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com<mailto:srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com>> 
wrote:
Hi

In tomorrow’s weekly call, Tim and myself (from Ericsson) wanted to share our 
findings on test gaps in basic cloud capability, security and High availability 
areas.

Can you plz add to the agenda if we can get some time for this?

Thanks
Srikanth




___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Request for a slot in tomorrow's weekly call

[Wenjing Chu]

Thanks Srikanth. And sorry for being slow in sending out the agenda.

Here it is for this Friday:

(1) Review of gap analysis findings by Srikanth and Tim.
(2) Preliminary review of the workflow - I will submit the patch before the
call.
(3) Needs more hands on the remaining docs. Review the list.

Thanks.
Wenjing

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Srikanth Vavilapalli <
srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
> In tomorrow’s weekly call, Tim and myself (from Ericsson) wanted to share
> our findings on test gaps in basic cloud capability, security and High
> availability areas.
>
>
>
> Can you plz add to the agenda if we can get some time for this?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Srikanth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly meeting agenda 7/21

[Cooper, Trevor]

Looks good Wenjing

/Trevor

> On Jul 19, 2017, at 10:11 PM, Wenjing Chu  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Dovetailers
> 
> I am proposing we continue on the same topics for this week,
> 
> 1) Update on the most recent Dovetail release 0.3
> 2) Another round of review on the addendum document
> 3) Continue to look through the open task list, including docs that still 
> remain in drafts
> 
> Anything else to add?
> 
> Regards
> Wenjing
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail][CI]How to create a dovetail CI weekly job?

[吴之惠]

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for your job. I have already noticed about the dovetail job on
zte-pod1. And I will update the result to the “dovetail tool running
history ” wiki page.

Best regards,

Zhihui.Wu


Lijun (Matthew) <matthew.li...@huawei.com>于2017年7月17日周一 上午10:21写道：

> Hi Zhihui
>
>
>
> After the patch https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/37225/ merged, the
> job works in CI now, in the Jenkins dashboard
>
> https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/dovetail/
>
> you can see the job zte-pod1 related jobs there, for example
>
>
> https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/dovetail/job/dovetail-fuel-zte-pod1-proposed_tests-danube/1/console
>
>
>
> please feel free to edit the “dovetail  tool running history ” wiki page
>
>
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Running+history+for+the+dovetail+tool
>
> row “Fuel(ZTE-POD1)” column “cvp.0.2.0” there.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> /MatthewLi
>
>
>
> *发件人:* 吴之惠 [mailto:zhihui.wu2006+...@gmail.com]
> *发送时间:* 2017年7月11日 16:55
> *收件人:* Lijun (Matthew); Motamary, Shabrinath via opnfv-tech-discuss;
> Tianhongbo
> *抄送:* serena.feng.711
> *主题:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail][CI]How to create a dovetail CI
> weekly job?
>
>
>
> HI Matthew,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your reply. Let's discuss it on that patch.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Zhihui
>
>
>
> Lijun (Matthew) <matthew.li...@huawei.com>于2017年7月11日周二 下午4:29写道：
>
> hi Zhihui
>
> there are some examples existed already, such as the compass ones. Since
> you mentioned it will be a weekly job and the pod name, as you know we run
> against Danube now to publish the Danube based release, so it should deploy
> Danube scenario. will put up a patch to add you to review, then we can
> comments more on the patch directly.
>
> best regards
> /MatthewLi
>
> *发件人：*吴之惠
>
> *收件人：*Motamary, Shabrinath via opnfv-tech-discuss,田红波
>
> *抄送：*serena.feng@gmail.com
>
> *时间：*2017-07-11 16:22:08
>
> *主题:*[opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail][CI]How to create a dovetail CI
> weekly job?
>
>
>
> Hi dovetail team,
>
>
>
> I would like to create a dovetail CI weekly job on ZTE pod1. The scenario
> is os-odl_l2-nofeature-ha and the installer is fuel.
>
> I read jjb template files about dovetail in releng. It is hard to find out
> which jjb template file I should modify.
>
> Would you kindly please give me some guidance? Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Zhihui.Wu
>
>
>
>
>
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube Release

[Wenjing Chu]

The use cases that will work well are simpler ones that capture the main design 
pattern but not full brown complex solutions like VOLTE.

Wenjing

From: Cooper, Trevor [mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:00 PM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube 
Release

Hi Wenjing

Yes its new thread.

Re. EUAG I am aware of the Pain Points Wiki page however it's not clear to me 
how this is feeding initial scope of CVP. The CVP page 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=11700688 does not have any 
feedback yet from what I can see ... any idea on how we can facilitate getting 
some feedback?

I take your point about complexity of those applications and common patterns 
... but what was the suggestion for an alternative "use-case approach"? I 
assumed it meant using specific use-models e.g. VOLTE to derive platform 
capabilities that we should include in scope of tests ... this also seems to be 
what you are saying but I don't think that analysis has been done in Dovetail 
yet, correct?

/Trevor

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:16 AM
To: Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com<mailto:trevor.coo...@intel.com>>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube 
Release

Hi Trevor

I'm not sure if your email is a follow-up of a previous message or not. I 
couldn't find another email so I'm assuming this is a new thread. Let me know 
if I'm mistaken.

First of all, we did receive detailed feedbacks from EUAG as far back as Feb 
and most recently during the Summit in June. So additional feedbacks are 
welcome but we are not waiting/gating on anything from EUAG at this time. As 
part of action items during the Summit when CVP was discussed with the EUAG, we 
agreed to set up a wiki in EUAG for tracking additional feedbacks. It's under 
the EUAG wiki page and just follow the link for cvp feedbacks.

I personally use the term "use case approach" in the context of CVP to mean 
that for a given SUT, we identify common use patterns, and develop automated 
test cases to exercise such patterns. I agree with Bryan's comment in 
yesterday's c call that applications like VOLTE and vCPE are too complex for 
our purposes - it won't be easy to separate issues of the application's 
implementation from the issues of SUT (the latter is what we wish to identify). 
A better approach is abstract the common design patterns out of a complex 
application, and develop test cases around those common patterns that have more 
general applicability to all similar applications.

For example, vPING is a common pattern of "2 virtual machines with virtual 
network connectivity between them". This can be seen as the simplest use 
pattern. Another use pattern may be multiple virtual machines load balancing to 
provide a common service. vCPE, if narrowly defined, can be a pattern of secure 
gateway between two network domains. I personally think this space between 
simplicity of a vPING to a well understood gateway function may be the most 
productive area we can focus on.

Many of OPNFV projects can contribute these use pattern test cases, by 
abstracting and by clarifying what the test intention is, in some cases. This 
is a great area of 'low hanging fruit' during the E release cycle.

Regards
Wenjing

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Cooper, Trevor
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 4:50 PM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube Release

My notes on the "use-case approach" with VOLTE and vCPE ... capture that EUAG 
supports the approach and will get back with some suggestions. Are we still 
waiting on the EUAG to get back? If yes what are our expectations for receiving 
guidance? Can we try to define the "use-case approach" better ... e.g. meld 
this with our current approach to say identify gaps/deficiencies with the test 
cases? What approach should we take for identifying and organizing VOLTE and 
vCPE capabilities and their relevant test-cases?

/Trevor
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube Release

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

EUAG input to the CVP use case priorities will be a topic in the upcoming EUAG 
call (next week). I discussed some proposed agenda items with Steven yesterday 
and this was included, along with:
- reframing the pain points to be more actionable by the tech community, e.g. 
for future projects or programs such as CVP
- health-check on the role of the EUAG, how it's influencing the tech 
community, and how the community is serving the end-user interests overall

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] on behalf of Cooper, Trevor 
[trevor.coo...@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:00 PM
To: Wenjing Chu; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube 
Release

Hi Wenjing

Yes its new thread.

Re. EUAG I am aware of the Pain Points Wiki page however it’s not clear to me 
how this is feeding initial scope of CVP. The CVP page 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=11700688<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D11700688=DwMFAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=OrbtGCluczz9awEKz9Fv7g=nqVZWfMzWua-ceGpCb41OmUWrpJk9DYDAiiLHXzNSs0=-p14qhZ2PTD1A51NgEcBa8Q-K8RC0CrQFIw0Leng_VE=>
 does not have any feedback yet from what I can see … any idea on how we can 
facilitate getting some feedback?

I take your point about complexity of those applications and common patterns … 
but what was the suggestion for an alternative “use-case approach”? I assumed 
it meant using specific use-models e.g. VOLTE to derive platform capabilities 
that we should include in scope of tests ... this also seems to be what you are 
saying but I don’t think that analysis has been done in Dovetail yet, correct?

/Trevor

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:16 AM
To: Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube 
Release

Hi Trevor

I’m not sure if your email is a follow-up of a previous message or not. I 
couldn’t find another email so I’m assuming this is a new thread. Let me know 
if I’m mistaken.

First of all, we did receive detailed feedbacks from EUAG as far back as Feb 
and most recently during the Summit in June. So additional feedbacks are 
welcome but we are not waiting/gating on anything from EUAG at this time. As 
part of action items during the Summit when CVP was discussed with the EUAG, we 
agreed to set up a wiki in EUAG for tracking additional feedbacks. It’s under 
the EUAG wiki page and just follow the link for cvp feedbacks.

I personally use the term “use case approach” in the context of CVP to mean 
that for a given SUT, we identify common use patterns, and develop automated 
test cases to exercise such patterns. I agree with Bryan’s comment in 
yesterday’s c call that applications like VOLTE and vCPE are too complex for 
our purposes – it won’t be easy to separate issues of the application’s 
implementation from the issues of SUT (the latter is what we wish to identify). 
A better approach is abstract the common design patterns out of a complex 
application, and develop test cases around those common patterns that have more 
general applicability to all similar applications.

For example, vPING is a common pattern of “2 virtual machines with virtual 
network connectivity between them”. This can be seen as the simplest use 
pattern. Another use pattern may be multiple virtual machines load balancing to 
provide a common service. vCPE, if narrowly defined, can be a pattern of secure 
gateway between two network domains. I personally think this space between 
simplicity of a vPING to a well understood gateway function may be the most 
productive area we can focus on.

Many of OPNFV projects can contribute these use pattern test cases, by 
abstracting and by clarifying what the test intention is, in some cases. This 
is a great area of ‘low hanging fruit’ during the E release cycle.

Regards
Wenjing

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Cooper, Trevor
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 4:50 PM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube Release

My notes on the “use-case approach” with VOLTE and vCPE … capture that EUAG 
supports the approach and will get back with some suggestions. Are we still 
waiting on the EUAG to get back? If yes what are our expectations for receiving 
guidance? Can we try to define the “use-case approach” better … e.g. meld this 
with our current approach to say identify gaps/deficiencies with the test 
cases? What approach should we take for identifying and or

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube Release

[Cooper, Trevor]

Hi Wenjing

Yes its new thread.

Re. EUAG I am aware of the Pain Points Wiki page however it's not clear to me 
how this is feeding initial scope of CVP. The CVP page 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=11700688 does not have any 
feedback yet from what I can see ... any idea on how we can facilitate getting 
some feedback?

I take your point about complexity of those applications and common patterns 
... but what was the suggestion for an alternative "use-case approach"? I 
assumed it meant using specific use-models e.g. VOLTE to derive platform 
capabilities that we should include in scope of tests ... this also seems to be 
what you are saying but I don't think that analysis has been done in Dovetail 
yet, correct?

/Trevor

From: Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:16 AM
To: Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube 
Release

Hi Trevor

I'm not sure if your email is a follow-up of a previous message or not. I 
couldn't find another email so I'm assuming this is a new thread. Let me know 
if I'm mistaken.

First of all, we did receive detailed feedbacks from EUAG as far back as Feb 
and most recently during the Summit in June. So additional feedbacks are 
welcome but we are not waiting/gating on anything from EUAG at this time. As 
part of action items during the Summit when CVP was discussed with the EUAG, we 
agreed to set up a wiki in EUAG for tracking additional feedbacks. It's under 
the EUAG wiki page and just follow the link for cvp feedbacks.

I personally use the term "use case approach" in the context of CVP to mean 
that for a given SUT, we identify common use patterns, and develop automated 
test cases to exercise such patterns. I agree with Bryan's comment in 
yesterday's c call that applications like VOLTE and vCPE are too complex for 
our purposes - it won't be easy to separate issues of the application's 
implementation from the issues of SUT (the latter is what we wish to identify). 
A better approach is abstract the common design patterns out of a complex 
application, and develop test cases around those common patterns that have more 
general applicability to all similar applications.

For example, vPING is a common pattern of "2 virtual machines with virtual 
network connectivity between them". This can be seen as the simplest use 
pattern. Another use pattern may be multiple virtual machines load balancing to 
provide a common service. vCPE, if narrowly defined, can be a pattern of secure 
gateway between two network domains. I personally think this space between 
simplicity of a vPING to a well understood gateway function may be the most 
productive area we can focus on.

Many of OPNFV projects can contribute these use pattern test cases, by 
abstracting and by clarifying what the test intention is, in some cases. This 
is a great area of 'low hanging fruit' during the E release cycle.

Regards
Wenjing

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Cooper, Trevor
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 4:50 PM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube Release

My notes on the "use-case approach" with VOLTE and vCPE ... capture that EUAG 
supports the approach and will get back with some suggestions. Are we still 
waiting on the EUAG to get back? If yes what are our expectations for receiving 
guidance? Can we try to define the "use-case approach" better ... e.g. meld 
this with our current approach to say identify gaps/deficiencies with the test 
cases? What approach should we take for identifying and organizing VOLTE and 
vCPE capabilities and their relevant test-cases?

/Trevor
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube Release

[Wenjing Chu]

Hi Trevor

I'm not sure if your email is a follow-up of a previous message or not. I 
couldn't find another email so I'm assuming this is a new thread. Let me know 
if I'm mistaken.

First of all, we did receive detailed feedbacks from EUAG as far back as Feb 
and most recently during the Summit in June. So additional feedbacks are 
welcome but we are not waiting/gating on anything from EUAG at this time. As 
part of action items during the Summit when CVP was discussed with the EUAG, we 
agreed to set up a wiki in EUAG for tracking additional feedbacks. It's under 
the EUAG wiki page and just follow the link for cvp feedbacks.

I personally use the term "use case approach" in the context of CVP to mean 
that for a given SUT, we identify common use patterns, and develop automated 
test cases to exercise such patterns. I agree with Bryan's comment in 
yesterday's c call that applications like VOLTE and vCPE are too complex for 
our purposes - it won't be easy to separate issues of the application's 
implementation from the issues of SUT (the latter is what we wish to identify). 
A better approach is abstract the common design patterns out of a complex 
application, and develop test cases around those common patterns that have more 
general applicability to all similar applications.

For example, vPING is a common pattern of "2 virtual machines with virtual 
network connectivity between them". This can be seen as the simplest use 
pattern. Another use pattern may be multiple virtual machines load balancing to 
provide a common service. vCPE, if narrowly defined, can be a pattern of secure 
gateway between two network domains. I personally think this space between 
simplicity of a vPING to a well understood gateway function may be the most 
productive area we can focus on.

Many of OPNFV projects can contribute these use pattern test cases, by 
abstracting and by clarifying what the test intention is, in some cases. This 
is a great area of 'low hanging fruit' during the E release cycle.

Regards
Wenjing

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Cooper, Trevor
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 4:50 PM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Use-cases for Dovetail Danube Release

My notes on the "use-case approach" with VOLTE and vCPE ... capture that EUAG 
supports the approach and will get back with some suggestions. Are we still 
waiting on the EUAG to get back? If yes what are our expectations for receiving 
guidance? Can we try to define the "use-case approach" better ... e.g. meld 
this with our current approach to say identify gaps/deficiencies with the test 
cases? What approach should we take for identifying and organizing VOLTE and 
vCPE capabilities and their relevant test-cases?

/Trevor
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail][CI]How to create a dovetail CI weekly job?

[吴之惠]

HI Matthew,

Thanks for your reply. Let's discuss it on that patch.

Best regards,

Zhihui

Lijun (Matthew) 于2017年7月11日周二 下午4:29写道：

> hi Zhihui
>
> there are some examples existed already, such as the compass ones. Since
> you mentioned it will be a weekly job and the pod name, as you know we run
> against Danube now to publish the Danube based release, so it should deploy
> Danube scenario. will put up a patch to add you to review, then we can
> comments more on the patch directly.
>
> best regards
> /MatthewLi
> *发件人：*吴之惠
> *收件人：*Motamary, Shabrinath via opnfv-tech-discuss,田红波
> *抄送：*serena.feng@gmail.com
> *时间：*2017-07-11 16:22:08
> *主题:*[opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail][CI]How to create a dovetail CI
> weekly job?
>
> Hi dovetail team,
>
> I would like to create a dovetail CI weekly job on ZTE pod1. The scenario
> is os-odl_l2-nofeature-ha and the installer is fuel.
> I read jjb template files about dovetail in releng. It is hard to find out
> which jjb template file I should modify.
> Would you kindly please give me some guidance? Thanks in advance.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Zhihui.Wu
>
>
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly meeting agenda

[Cooper, Trevor]

I have made a list of our recent discussion topics and things we are actively 
working on to make sure we are not neglecting or losing topics. If agreed we 
can use this to prioritize weekly meeting agenda and track things that need 
attention but are not currently progressing. Please review and add what I have 
missed. Do you think this is useful to update weekly?

https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Open+Topics+for+Dovetail

/Trevor



From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 7:59 PM
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly meeting agenda

Hi Dovetailers

I propose we cover the most urgent topics this week:

-  Review the feedbacks from tsc members

-  Examine remaining work items required for first release and decide 
how to close them

-  Quick new status updates
For the first two topics, can everyone do homework ahead of time so we can hope 
to actually produce a good list?
Any other suggestions? Would also be good to share time availability info 
during the summer months when it happens to be crunch time for us.

Thanks!
Wenjing
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] sdnvpn test cases with dovetail.cvp.0.1.0 throw an error

[Srikanth Vavilapalli]

Thanks Dan Xu for detailed response.

I changed the pod.xml as u suggested and ran the ha test suite. I also enabled 
debug option while running the tests and noticed the outage times getting 
logged in the dovetail.log file.

Thanks
Srikanth

From: xudan (N) [mailto:xuda...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 11:55 PM
To: Srikanth Vavilapalli <srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] sdnvpn test cases with 
dovetail.cvp.0.1.0 throw an error

Hi Srikanth,


  1.  About the pod.yaml file

  1.  Think it’s wrong. Switch to user “stack” first, then source under cloud 
rc file(named stackrc in my env), command “openstack server list” will show the 
platform nodes, mine is
+---+--+---+-+---+
| ID
| Name | Status | Networks | Image 
Name |
+---+--+---+-+---+
| 8e4380ea-b348-49b7-a5e4-39dc18e8994b | compute-0   | ACTIVE   | 
ctlplane=192.0.2.15  | overcloud-full   |
| 49a5f4f6-6b84-4ce3-9a69-654618511dfb| controller-2  | ACTIVE   | 
ctlplane=192.0.2.10  | overcloud-full   |
| adcef3e3-f456-4c01-987a-1d72182b3f00| compute-1   | ACTIVE   | 
ctlplane=192.0.2.17  | overcloud-full   |
| f41552b9-a4e4-4445-bd07-e8b025bec9b6 | controller-0  | ACTIVE   | 
ctlplane=192.0.2.14  | overcloud-full   |
| f622a698-5fa0-41ff-a0e9-566e3a5e45b7| controller-1  | ACTIVE   | 
ctlplane=192.0.2.13  | overcloud-full   |
+---+--+---+-+---+


  1.  Set the ${DOVETAIL_HOME}/pre_config/pod.yaml as follows

nodes:
-
name: node1
role: Controller
ip: 192.0.2.14——> node IP
user: heat-admin  ———> node login user
key_filename: /root/.ssh/id_rsa  ——> ssh key file
-
name: node2
role: Controller
ip: 192.0.2.13
user: heat-admin
key_filename: /root/.ssh/id_rsa
-
name: node3
role: Compute
ip: 192.0.2.15
user: heat-admin
key_filename: /root/.ssh/id_rsa

The user “heat-admin” above is obtained from the installation guide document. 
You can check it according to your platform installation documents. I can “ssh 
heat-admin@192.0.2.14<mailto:heat-admin@192.0.2.14>” to verify that.
If deployed in HA mode, since only process HA (no node HA) are tested for the 
current tests, you can only write one Controller “node1” information in the 
pod.yaml , it will work, i.e., if I delete node2 node3 info in the above file, 
it will also work.


  1.  Copy the user “stack” private key (the path usually is 
/home/stack/.ssh/id_rsa) to  $DOVETAIL_HOME/pre_config/id_rsa



  1.  About the results data

  1.  In the result file, if the value of “sla_pass”  is 1, the test passes, 
otherwise fails.

Under linux vim env, suggest to use “:$!python -m json.tool” to transfer the 
result file into json to see more clearly.


  1.  For the outage time, it is not shown in the dovetail.ha.tc***.out file 
now.

If you run “dovetail run --testsuite  proposed_tests --testarea ha -d” (“-d” 
added for showing debug logs), you can find in results/dovetail.log, such as


2017-07-06 20:17:22,211 - container.Container - DEBUG - 2017-07-06 20:17:22,211 
yardstick.benchmark.scenarios.availability.monitor.basemonitor 
basemonitor.py:155 DEBUG the monitor result:{'total_time': 10.886008977890015, 
'outage_time': 1.1303958892822266, 'outage_count': 1, 'last_outage': 
1499372232.053993, 'first_outage': 1499372230.923597, 'total_count': 8}

Regards,
Dan Xu

发件人: Srikanth Vavilapalli [mailto:srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com]
发送时间: 2017年7月7日 2:48
收件人: Srikanth Vavilapalli; xudan (N); 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
主题: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] sdnvpn test cases with 
dovetail.cvp.0.1.0 throw an error

Hi

Just continuing my dovetail testing with HA test suite and have few questions:


  1.  I created the pod.yaml file as shown below. Are these correct settings 
for an apex based OPNFV deployment?

root@r720-003 ~/dovetail/results $ cat ../pre_config/pod.yaml
nodes:
-
name: node1
role: Controller
ip: 192.168.122.140  <- apex undercloud IP
user: stack  <- apex undercloud login user
key_filename: /root/.ssh/id_rsa  <- apex undercloud ssh key file


  1.  The test run has generated output files for each test case. What is the 
way to interpret this output? Which fields in that log indicate the outage time 
and recovery time? I expecting some outage for these tests because my backend 
opnfv deployment is running in non-HA mode.

ro

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] sdnvpn test cases with dovetail.cvp.0.1.0 throw an error

[xudan (N)]

Hi Srikanth,


1.   About the pod.yaml file

1)  Think it’s wrong. Switch to user “stack” first, then source under cloud 
rc file(named stackrc in my env), command “openstack server list” will show the 
platform nodes, mine is
+---+--+---+-+---+
| ID
| Name | Status | Networks | Image 
Name |
+---+--+---+-+---+
| 8e4380ea-b348-49b7-a5e4-39dc18e8994b | compute-0   | ACTIVE   | 
ctlplane=192.0.2.15  | overcloud-full   |
| 49a5f4f6-6b84-4ce3-9a69-654618511dfb| controller-2  | ACTIVE   | 
ctlplane=192.0.2.10  | overcloud-full   |
| adcef3e3-f456-4c01-987a-1d72182b3f00| compute-1   | ACTIVE   | 
ctlplane=192.0.2.17  | overcloud-full   |
| f41552b9-a4e4-4445-bd07-e8b025bec9b6 | controller-0  | ACTIVE   | 
ctlplane=192.0.2.14  | overcloud-full   |
| f622a698-5fa0-41ff-a0e9-566e3a5e45b7| controller-1  | ACTIVE   | 
ctlplane=192.0.2.13  | overcloud-full   |
+---+--+---+-+---+


2)  Set the ${DOVETAIL_HOME}/pre_config/pod.yaml as follows

nodes:
-
name: node1
role: Controller
ip: 192.0.2.14——> node IP
user: heat-admin  ———> node login user
key_filename: /root/.ssh/id_rsa  ——> ssh key file
-
name: node2
role: Controller
ip: 192.0.2.13
user: heat-admin
key_filename: /root/.ssh/id_rsa
-
name: node3
role: Compute
ip: 192.0.2.15
user: heat-admin
key_filename: /root/.ssh/id_rsa

The user “heat-admin” above is obtained from the installation guide document. 
You can check it according to your platform installation documents. I can “ssh 
heat-admin@192.0.2.14” to verify that.
If deployed in HA mode, since only process HA (no node HA) are tested for the 
current tests, you can only write one Controller “node1” information in the 
pod.yaml , it will work, i.e., if I delete node2 node3 info in the above file, 
it will also work.


3)  Copy the user “stack” private key (the path usually is 
/home/stack/.ssh/id_rsa) to  $DOVETAIL_HOME/pre_config/id_rsa



2.   About the results data

1)  In the result file, if the value of “sla_pass”  is 1, the test passes, 
otherwise fails.

Under linux vim env, suggest to use “:$!python -m json.tool” to transfer the 
result file into json to see more clearly.


2)  For the outage time, it is not shown in the dovetail.ha.tc***.out file 
now.

If you run “dovetail run --testsuite  proposed_tests --testarea ha -d” (“-d” 
added for showing debug logs), you can find in results/dovetail.log, such as


2017-07-06 20:17:22,211 - container.Container - DEBUG - 2017-07-06 20:17:22,211 
yardstick.benchmark.scenarios.availability.monitor.basemonitor 
basemonitor.py:155 DEBUG the monitor result:{'total_time': 10.886008977890015, 
'outage_time': 1.1303958892822266, 'outage_count': 1, 'last_outage': 
1499372232.053993, 'first_outage': 1499372230.923597, 'total_count': 8}

Regards,
Dan Xu

发件人: Srikanth Vavilapalli [mailto:srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com]
发送时间: 2017年7月7日 2:48
收件人: Srikanth Vavilapalli; xudan (N); opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
主题: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] sdnvpn test cases with 
dovetail.cvp.0.1.0 throw an error

Hi

Just continuing my dovetail testing with HA test suite and have few questions:


  1.  I created the pod.yaml file as shown below. Are these correct settings 
for an apex based OPNFV deployment?

root@r720-003 ~/dovetail/results $ cat ../pre_config/pod.yaml
nodes:
-
name: node1
role: Controller
ip: 192.168.122.140  <- apex undercloud IP
user: stack  <- apex undercloud login user
key_filename: /root/.ssh/id_rsa  <- apex undercloud ssh key file


  1.  The test run has generated output files for each test case. What is the 
way to interpret this output? Which fields in that log indicate the outage time 
and recovery time? I expecting some outage for these tests because my backend 
opnfv deployment is running in non-HA mode.

root@r720-003 ~/dovetail/results $ cat dovetail.ha.tc001.out
{"status": 1, "result": [{"context_cfg": {"nodes": {"node1": {"ip": 
"192.168.122.140", "key_filename": "/root/.ssh/id_rsa", "role": "Controller", 
"name": "node1.LF-785e43fe", "user": "stack"}}}, "scenario_cfg": {"task_id": 
"785e43fe-9ef0-4a0f-a6e2-f813a468915f", "runner": {"object": 
"yardstick.benchmark.scenarios.availability.ser

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] sdnvpn test cases with dovetail.cvp.0.1.0 throw an error

[Srikanth Vavilapalli]

Hi

Just continuing my dovetail testing with HA test suite and have few questions:


  1.  I created the pod.yaml file as shown below. Are these correct settings 
for an apex based OPNFV deployment?

root@r720-003 ~/dovetail/results $ cat ../pre_config/pod.yaml
nodes:
-
name: node1
role: Controller
ip: 192.168.122.140  <- apex undercloud IP
user: stack  <- apex undercloud login user
key_filename: /root/.ssh/id_rsa  <- apex undercloud ssh key file


  1.  The test run has generated output files for each test case. What is the 
way to interpret this output? Which fields in that log indicate the outage time 
and recovery time? I expecting some outage for these tests because my backend 
opnfv deployment is running in non-HA mode.

root@r720-003 ~/dovetail/results $ cat dovetail.ha.tc001.out
{"status": 1, "result": [{"context_cfg": {"nodes": {"node1": {"ip": 
"192.168.122.140", "key_filename": "/root/.ssh/id_rsa", "role": "Controller", 
"name": "node1.LF-785e43fe", "user": "stack"}}}, "scenario_cfg": {"task_id": 
"785e43fe-9ef0-4a0f-a6e2-f813a468915f", "runner": {"object": 
"yardstick.benchmark.scenarios.availability.serviceha.ServiceHA", "type": 
"Iteration", "output_filename": 
"/home/opnfv/yardstick/results/dovetail.ha.tc001.out", "iterations": 1, 
"runner_id": 55}, "tc": "opnfv_yardstick_tc019", "options": {"wait_time": 10, 
"attackers": [{"fault_type": "kill-process", "host": "node1", "process_name": 
"nova-api"}], "monitors": [{"monitor_number": 3, "monitor_time": 10, 
"command_name": "openstack server list", "monitor_type": "openstack-cmd", 
"sla": {"max_outage_time": 5}}, {"process_name": "nova-api", "monitor_type": 
"process", "monitor_number": 3, "host": "node1", "monitor_time": 20, "sla": 
{"max_recover_time": 20}}]}, "nodes": {"node1": "node1.LF-785e43fe"}, "type": 
"ServiceHA", "sla": {"outage_time": 5, "action": "monitor"}}, "runner_id": 55}, 
{"benchmark": {"timestamp": 1499367559.269849, "errors": "", "data": 
{"sla_pass": 1}, "sequence": 1}, "runner_id": 55}]}

root@r720-003 ~/dovetail/results $ cat dovetail.ha.tc002.out
{"status": 1, "result": [{"context_cfg": {"nodes": {"node1": {"ip": 
"192.168.122.140", "key_filename": "/root/.ssh/id_rsa", "role": "Controller", 
"name": "node1.LF-1271a70f", "user": "stack"}}}, "scenario_cfg": {"task_id": 
"1271a70f-aa8a-44a7-83b9-f59705000483", "runner": {"duration": 1, "object": 
"yardstick.benchmark.scenarios.availability.serviceha.ServiceHA", "type": 
"Duration", "output_filename": 
"/home/opnfv/yardstick/results/dovetail.ha.tc002.out", "runner_id": 55}, "tc": 
"opnfv_yardstick_tc045", "options": {"attackers": [{"fault_type": 
"kill-process", "host": "node1", "process_name": "neutron-server"}], 
"monitors": [{"monitor_number": 3, "monitor_time": 10, "command_name": 
"openstack router list", "monitor_type": "openstack-cmd", "sla": 
{"max_outage_time": 5}}, {"process_name": "neutron-server", "monitor_type": 
"process", "monitor_number": 3, "host": "node1", "monitor_time": 20, "sla": 
{"max_recover_time": 20}}]}, "nodes": {"node1": "node1.LF-1271a70f"}, "type": 
"ServiceHA", "sla": {"outage_time": 5, "action": "monitor"}}, "runner_id": 55}, 
{"benchmark": {"timestamp": 1499367597.087087, "errors": "", "data": 
{"sla_pass": 1}, "sequence": 1}, "runner_id": 55}]}

Thanks for your help.

Thanks
Srikanth


From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Srikanth 
V