On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Eric Harney wrote:
> On 06/19/2017 09:22 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> On 6/16/2017 8:58 AM, Eric Harney wrote:
>>> I'm not convinced yet that this failure is purely Ceph-specific, at a
>>> quick look.
>>>
>>> I think what happens here is, unshelve performs an asyn
On 06/19/2017 09:22 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 6/16/2017 8:58 AM, Eric Harney wrote:
>> I'm not convinced yet that this failure is purely Ceph-specific, at a
>> quick look.
>>
>> I think what happens here is, unshelve performs an asynchronous delete
>> of a glance image, and returns as successf
On 6/16/2017 8:58 AM, Eric Harney wrote:
I'm not convinced yet that this failure is purely Ceph-specific, at a
quick look.
I think what happens here is, unshelve performs an asynchronous delete
of a glance image, and returns as successful before the delete has
necessarily completed. The check i
On 6/16/2017 9:46 AM, Eric Harney wrote:
On 06/16/2017 10:21 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
I don't think merging tests that are showing failures, then blacklisting
them, is the right approach. And as Eric points out, this isn't
necessarily just a failure with Ceph. There is a legitimate logical
issu
On 6/16/2017 8:13 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Yeah there is a distinction between the ceph nv job that runs on
nova/cinder/glance changes and the ceph job that runs on os-brick and
glance_store changes. When we made the tempest dsvm ceph job non-voting
we failed to mirror that in the os-brick/gla
On 6/16/2017 3:32 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
So, before we go further, ceph seems to be -nv on all projects right
now, right? So I get there is some debate on that patch, but is it
blocking anything?
Ceph is voting on os-brick patches. So it does block some things when
we run into this situatio
>
> So, before we go further, ceph seems to be -nv on all projects right
> now, right? So I get there is some debate on that patch, but is it
> blocking anything?
>
Ceph is voting on os-brick patches. So it does block some things when
we run into this situation.
But again, we should avoid getti
On 06/16/2017 10:46 AM, Eric Harney wrote:
> On 06/16/2017 10:21 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>>
>> I don't think merging tests that are showing failures, then blacklisting
>> them, is the right approach. And as Eric points out, this isn't
>> necessarily just a failure with Ceph. There is a legitimate
On 06/16/2017 09:51 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>>
>> It would be useful to provide detailed examples. Everything is trade
>> offs, and having the conversation in the abstract is very difficult to
>> understand those trade offs.
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>
> We've had this issue in Cinder and os-brick. Usu
On 06/16/2017 10:21 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>
> I don't think merging tests that are showing failures, then blacklisting
> them, is the right approach. And as Eric points out, this isn't
> necessarily just a failure with Ceph. There is a legitimate logical
> issue with what this particular test i
>
> yea, we had such cases and decided to have blacklist of tests not
> suitable for ceph. ceph job will exclude the tests failing on ceph.
> Jon is working on this - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459774/
>
I don't think merging tests that are showing failures, then blacklisting
them, is the
Excerpts from Ghanshyam Mann's message of 2017-06-16 23:05:08 +0900:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > On 06/16/2017 09:51 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It would be useful to provide detailed examples. Everything is trade
> >>> offs, and having the conversation in th
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 06/16/2017 09:51 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be useful to provide detailed examples. Everything is trade
>>> offs, and having the conversation in the abstract is very difficult to
>>> understand those trade offs.
>>>
>>> -
antee anywhere that the unshelve API behaves how this
tempest test expects it to?
>>
>>
>> Original Mail
>> Sender: ;
>> To: ;
>> Date: 2017/06/16 05:25
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems
>>
>>
&g
On 06/16/2017 09:51 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>>
>> It would be useful to provide detailed examples. Everything is trade
>> offs, and having the conversation in the abstract is very difficult to
>> understand those trade offs.
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>
> We've had this issue in Cinder and os-brick. Usu
>
> It would be useful to provide detailed examples. Everything is trade
> offs, and having the conversation in the abstract is very difficult to
> understand those trade offs.
>
> -Sean
>
We've had this issue in Cinder and os-brick. Usually around Ceph, but if
you follow the user survey,
6 05:25
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems
>
>
> On 06/15/2017 01:04 PM, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
>> This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite
>> a few times recently.
>>
>> Briefly, w
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/471352/ may be an example
Original Mail
Sender:
To:
Date: 2017/06/16 05:25
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][qa][glance] some recent tempest problems
On 06/15/2017 01:04 PM, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
> This isn't a glance-specific proble
On 06/15/2017 01:04 PM, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
> This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite
> a few times recently.
>
> Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not
> gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be merged in
> tempest, bu
Excerpts from Brian Rosmaita's message of 2017-06-15 13:04:39 -0400:
> This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite
> a few times recently.
>
> Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not
> gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be
This isn't a glance-specific problem though we've encountered it quite
a few times recently.
Briefly, we're gating on Tempest jobs that tempest itself does not
gate on. This leads to a situation where new tests can be merged in
tempest, but wind up breaking our gate. We aren't claiming that the
a
21 matches
Mail list logo