Folks
This is what we should discuss. Let's think of better testing coverage when
we decide to switch to new tag. We MUST NOT skip a single bug which we
fixed in downstream. So this means that for each bug fixed in downstream
there should be a set of tests merged into our testing framework along
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Sergey Kolekonov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Ivan. Getting rid of forks and moving to puppet-librarian is
> complicated work and such problems are nearly unavoidable. It's hard to
> cover all possible corner cases with regular
Ivan,
BVT is not source of truth. BVT handles couple of scenarios from hundreds.
You should rely on swarm test and get parity in % of failed tests.
--
Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ivan Berezovskiy
Hi,
I agree with Ivan. Getting rid of forks and moving to puppet-librarian is
complicated work and such problems are nearly unavoidable. It's hard to
cover all possible corner cases with regular tests.
openstacklib module provides basic functionality for many OpenStack
modules, so reverting it to
Hi,
First of all, I want to mention (I don't blame anyone), that two patchsets
in bug description
([0], [1]) were not merged into upstream puppet-openstacklib module (and
commit
messages don't contain links to upstream review). I see only one proposed
patch [2]
from Dmitry Ilyin, which was
Hi,
The policy should be revert, IMHO. cherry-pick doesn't guarantee the
consistency, so it will take more time... Also this way gives time to write
tests to exclude the regression in future.
--
Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:52 PM,
Hi Fuelers,
It seems we have a regression on two critical bugs because of switching
Fuel to puppet-openstacklib:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1507685
This regressed to patches that were in Fuel Library that addressed two bugs
marked as Critical.
We should improve the acceptance criteria