[Beaker-devel] Re: Future directions for the Beaker test harness

2018-03-12 Thread Jeffrey Burke 
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Róman Joost  wrote:
> Dear Jeff,
>
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 08:12:19AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Róman Joost  wrote:
>> > Dear Jeff,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:00:43AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
>> >> > Our current idea is to make restraint the default harness for RHEL8+ and
>> >> > therefore slowly phase out beah (as the default). That includes getting
>> >> > restraint to achieve feature parity with beah. I don't have an exact
>> >> > time frame for this yet and how we would pull this off, since I expect
>> >> > there are possibly higher priority items coming up.
>> >> >
>> >> That is a good plan. Do you have a list of features in BEAH that are
>> >> not in Restraint to achieve parity?
>> > At this moment we don't have a good overview of what specifically is
>> > missing. We do however have an epic:
>> >
>> > https://projects.engineering.redhat.com/browse/BKR-2891
>> >
>> Opened 08/Apr/15 12:51 AM /me looks at calendar.  Kidding, I see it is
>> still assigned to Dan. Can we get that reassigned to Matt Tyson
>> please.
> Done.
>
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206059
>> > support testinfo.desc Environment in restraint
>> >
>> OK I will talk to Bill and Ari and see if this is something that we
>> can get planned in the next sprint.
> Matt almost jumped on this one right away. To avoid any collisions
> perhaps don't tackle the support for the environment at the moment.
>
> Having said that, there might be a gazillion of bugs lurking we don't
> know about until we've switched our dogfood jobs to restraint. Once we
> have a better picture, I'm sure we're very happy to receive some help to
> get them closed quickly. I know Bill has already provided a few patches
> for recently reported bugs, which was very helpful.  So I'm suggesting,
> please hold up a bit and I'll reach out asking for help. Otherwise it'll
> be a shame if we would collide fixing the same bug.
Agreed, Bill Peck is on this list. I will also verbally mention it to
him. Matt is the SME for Restraint. If and when he needs help he can
reach out.

Thank you,
Jeff
>
>> >
>> >> > Does that answer your question or at least goes in the right direction?
>> >> Partially, do you know who on your team will be SME for Restraint?
>> > Matt Tyson  has taken the lead on restraint so he'll
>> > be the SME for it.
>> >
>> Thanks for the name! I can not wait to meet my new best friend Matt =)
>>
>> Thank you Roman, It is always a please talking with you,
> Same here, same here :)
>
> Kind Regards,
> --
> Róman Joost
> Senior Software Engineer, Products & Technologies Operations (Brisbane)
> Red Hat
>
> ___
> Beaker-devel mailing list -- beaker-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to beaker-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
>
On Mon, Mar 12,
2018 at 3:13 AM, Róman Joost mailto:rjo...@redhat.com;
target="_blank">rjo...@redhat.com wrote:Dear Jeff,

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 08:12:19AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
 On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Róman Joost mailto:rjo...@redhat.com;>rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
  Dear Jeff,
 
  On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:00:43AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
   Our current idea is to make restraint the default
harness for RHEL8+ and
   therefore slowly phase out beah (as the default).
That includes getting
   restraint to achieve feature parity with beah. I
don't have an exact
   time frame for this yet and how we would pull this
off, since I expect
   there are possibly higher priority items coming up.
  
  That is a good plan. Do you have a list of features in
BEAH that are
  not in Restraint to achieve parity?
  At this moment we don't have a good overview of what
specifically is
  missing. We do however have an epic:
 
   https://projects.engineering.redhat.com/browse/BKR-2891;
data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=enq=https://projects.engineering.redhat.com/browse/BKR-2891source=gmailust=1520942745405000usg=AFQjCNHovM5Ds4An0MtCRoRz_UdWhjjm7A;
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">https://projects.engineering.redhat.com/browse/BKR-2891
 
 Opened 08/Apr/15 12:51 AM /me looks at calendar. Kidding, I
see it is
 still assigned to Dan. Can we get that reassigned to Matt Tyson
 please.
Done.

   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206059;
data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=enq=https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id%3D1206059source=gmailust=1520942745405000usg=AFQjCNELJg9zrqxXyuup9wz1EN7OWWHh8A;
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206059
   support testinfo.desc Environment in restraint
 
 OK I will talk to Bill and Ari and see if
this is something that we
 can get planned in the next sprint.
Matt almost jumped on this one right away. To avoid any collisions
perhaps don't tackle the support for the environment at the moment.

[Beaker-devel] Re: Future directions for the Beaker test harness

2018-03-12 Thread Róman Joost 
Dear Jeff,

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 08:12:19AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Róman Joost  wrote:
> > Dear Jeff,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:00:43AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
> >> > Our current idea is to make restraint the default harness for RHEL8+ and
> >> > therefore slowly phase out beah (as the default). That includes getting
> >> > restraint to achieve feature parity with beah. I don't have an exact
> >> > time frame for this yet and how we would pull this off, since I expect
> >> > there are possibly higher priority items coming up.
> >> >
> >> That is a good plan. Do you have a list of features in BEAH that are
> >> not in Restraint to achieve parity?
> > At this moment we don't have a good overview of what specifically is
> > missing. We do however have an epic:
> >
> > https://projects.engineering.redhat.com/browse/BKR-2891
> >
> Opened 08/Apr/15 12:51 AM /me looks at calendar.  Kidding, I see it is
> still assigned to Dan. Can we get that reassigned to Matt Tyson
> please.
Done.

> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206059
> > support testinfo.desc Environment in restraint
> >
> OK I will talk to Bill and Ari and see if this is something that we
> can get planned in the next sprint.
Matt almost jumped on this one right away. To avoid any collisions
perhaps don't tackle the support for the environment at the moment.

Having said that, there might be a gazillion of bugs lurking we don't
know about until we've switched our dogfood jobs to restraint. Once we
have a better picture, I'm sure we're very happy to receive some help to
get them closed quickly. I know Bill has already provided a few patches
for recently reported bugs, which was very helpful.  So I'm suggesting,
please hold up a bit and I'll reach out asking for help. Otherwise it'll
be a shame if we would collide fixing the same bug.

> >
> >> > Does that answer your question or at least goes in the right direction?
> >> Partially, do you know who on your team will be SME for Restraint?
> > Matt Tyson  has taken the lead on restraint so he'll
> > be the SME for it.
> >
> Thanks for the name! I can not wait to meet my new best friend Matt =)
> 
> Thank you Roman, It is always a please talking with you,
Same here, same here :)

Kind Regards,
-- 
Róman Joost
Senior Software Engineer, Products & Technologies Operations (Brisbane)
Red Hat


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Beaker-devel mailing list -- beaker-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to beaker-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[Beaker-devel] Re: Future directions for the Beaker test harness

2018-03-08 Thread Róman Joost 
Dear Jeff,

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:00:43AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
> > Our current idea is to make restraint the default harness for RHEL8+ and
> > therefore slowly phase out beah (as the default). That includes getting
> > restraint to achieve feature parity with beah. I don't have an exact
> > time frame for this yet and how we would pull this off, since I expect
> > there are possibly higher priority items coming up.
> >
> That is a good plan. Do you have a list of features in BEAH that are
> not in Restraint to achieve parity?
At this moment we don't have a good overview of what specifically is
missing. We do however have an epic:

https://projects.engineering.redhat.com/browse/BKR-2891

in which we track bugs and tasks to figure out what else we're missing
to get feature parity. One missing feature we do know is captured in

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206059
support testinfo.desc Environment in restraint

That will get us change our dogfood tests to use restraint by default.
Once we have that, we will hopefully have a much better picture of what
is missing.

> > Does that answer your question or at least goes in the right direction?
> Partially, do you know who on your team will be SME for Restraint?
Matt Tyson  has taken the lead on restraint so he'll
be the SME for it.

Kind Regards,
-- 
Róman Joost
Senior Software Engineer, Products & Technologies Operations (Brisbane)
Red Hat


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Beaker-devel mailing list -- beaker-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to beaker-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[Beaker-devel] Re: Future directions for the Beaker test harness

2018-03-08 Thread Jeffrey Burke 
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Róman Joost  wrote:
> Dear Jeff,
>
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:25:47AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Nick Coghlan  wrote:
>> > - Original Message -
>> >> Excerpts from Amit Saha's message of 2014-08-20 14:04 +10:00:
>> [...]
>> > Yep, lets start with some permissive "you can do whatever you want" 
>> > defaults (it's a test harness after all), and if we get requests to be 
>> > able to run tests in a locked down container instead... well, part of the 
>> > reason for giving the default container lots of power is so people can 
>> > start their *own* locked down containers if they want them. If people want 
>> > the harness container to be more configurable, they're gonna have to be 
>> > *real* persuasive in order to successfully argue that starting a second 
>> > container doesn't make more sense :)
>> >
>>
>> Hi All,
>>  I wanted to see if I could revive this thread. It has been several
>> years now. We still have two harnesses in Beaker. Roman do you have a
>> roadmap of the Beaker Harness plan.
> I don't specifically know the contents of that conversation. Perhaps Dan
> can give me a hint if I'm on a wrong track here.
>
> Our current idea is to make restraint the default harness for RHEL8+ and
> therefore slowly phase out beah (as the default). That includes getting
> restraint to achieve feature parity with beah. I don't have an exact
> time frame for this yet and how we would pull this off, since I expect
> there are possibly higher priority items coming up.
>
That is a good plan. Do you have a list of features in BEAH that are
not in Restraint to achieve parity?
>
> Does that answer your question or at least goes in the right direction?
Partially, do you know who on your team will be SME for Restraint?
>
Thank you,
Jeff
> Kind Regards,
> --
> Róman Joost
> Senior Software Engineer, Products & Technologies Operations (Brisbane)
> Red Hat
>
> ___
> Beaker-devel mailing list -- beaker-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to beaker-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
>
___
Beaker-devel mailing list -- beaker-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to beaker-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[Beaker-devel] Re: Future directions for the Beaker test harness

2018-03-07 Thread Róman Joost 
Dear Jeff,

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:25:47AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Nick Coghlan  wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> Excerpts from Amit Saha's message of 2014-08-20 14:04 +10:00:
> [...]
> > Yep, lets start with some permissive "you can do whatever you want" 
> > defaults (it's a test harness after all), and if we get requests to be able 
> > to run tests in a locked down container instead... well, part of the reason 
> > for giving the default container lots of power is so people can start their 
> > *own* locked down containers if they want them. If people want the harness 
> > container to be more configurable, they're gonna have to be *real* 
> > persuasive in order to successfully argue that starting a second container 
> > doesn't make more sense :)
> >
> 
> Hi All,
>  I wanted to see if I could revive this thread. It has been several
> years now. We still have two harnesses in Beaker. Roman do you have a
> roadmap of the Beaker Harness plan.
I don't specifically know the contents of that conversation. Perhaps Dan
can give me a hint if I'm on a wrong track here.

Our current idea is to make restraint the default harness for RHEL8+ and
therefore slowly phase out beah (as the default). That includes getting
restraint to achieve feature parity with beah. I don't have an exact
time frame for this yet and how we would pull this off, since I expect
there are possibly higher priority items coming up.

Does that answer your question or at least goes in the right direction?

Kind Regards,
-- 
Róman Joost
Senior Software Engineer, Products & Technologies Operations (Brisbane)
Red Hat


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Beaker-devel mailing list -- beaker-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to beaker-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[Beaker-devel] Re: Future directions for the Beaker test harness

2018-03-07 Thread Jeffrey Burke 
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Nick Coghlan  wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> Excerpts from Amit Saha's message of 2014-08-20 14:04 +10:00:
>> > 1. If we do not allow selecting the base image, we are effectively
>> > *not* obeying
>> > the distro selection in the job unless of course both are the same.
>>
>> Right, so I think there are just two parameters which were hardcoded in
>> your experiment but which need to be adjustable if we implement the
>> feature for real: Docker base image to run the harness inside of (e.g.
>> fedora/20), and Docker registry URL to pull from (expectation being that
>> the user will supply a lab-local one to avoid pulling huge images over
>> the WAN).
>>
>> To begin with we could just have ksmeta variables for those both. It's
>> not great (no way to automatically pick a local registry automatically
>> for each lab, no way to make Beaker pick the right distro using filter
>> criteria like , etc) but it would be okay as a first
>> cut.
>
> +1 from me
>
>> > 2. If we start the container with /run volume mounted, running other
>> > containers on
>> > the host will be possible and so will be restarting the host. We *could*
>> > make this
>> > always the case or have an option to enable it.
>>
>> For things like this I think we should just pick some sane defaults and
>> leave them like that to start with. Privileged container, as little
>> isolation as possible, and any useful filesystems bind-mounted (/run and
>> /etc at least).
>
> Yep, lets start with some permissive "you can do whatever you want" defaults 
> (it's a test harness after all), and if we get requests to be able to run 
> tests in a locked down container instead... well, part of the reason for 
> giving the default container lots of power is so people can start their *own* 
> locked down containers if they want them. If people want the harness 
> container to be more configurable, they're gonna have to be *real* persuasive 
> in order to successfully argue that starting a second container doesn't make 
> more sense :)
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Callaghan 
>> Software Engineer, Hosted & Shared Services
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>
>> ___
>> Beaker-devel mailing list
>> Beaker-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
>> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/beaker-devel
>>
>
> --
> Nick Coghlan
> Red Hat Hosted & Shared Services
> Software Engineering & Development, Brisbane
>
> HSS Provisioning Architect
> ___
> Beaker-devel mailing list
> Beaker-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/beaker-devel

Hi All,
 I wanted to see if I could revive this thread. It has been several
years now. We still have two harnesses in Beaker. Roman do you have a
roadmap of the Beaker Harness plan.

Thank you,
Jeff
___
Beaker-devel mailing list -- beaker-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to beaker-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org