John,
It's a good option. Let's try it!
Also, we can try to find/implement something like [13] for ostestr.
[13] https://github.com/mahmoudimus/nose-timer
Regards,
Ivan Kolodyazhny,
http://blog.e0ne.info/
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:16 PM, John Griffith
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:57
On 2016-03-07 23:54:49 +0800 (+0800), Duncan Thomas wrote:
> Complexity can be tricky to spot by hand, and expecting reviewers to get it
> right all of the time is not a reasonable expectation.
>
> My ideal would be something that processes the commit and the jenkins logs,
> extracts the timing in
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Knight, Clinton
wrote:
>
>
> On 3/7/16, 10:45 AM, "Eric Harney" wrote:
>
> >On 03/06/2016 09:35 PM, John Griffith wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jay S. Bryant
> >> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ivan,
> >>>
> >>> I agree that our testing needs improvement. Th
On 3/7/16, 10:45 AM, "Eric Harney" wrote:
>On 03/06/2016 09:35 PM, John Griffith wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jay S. Bryant
wrote:
>>
>>> Ivan,
>>>
>>> I agree that our testing needs improvement. Thanks for starting this
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> With regards to adding a hacking c
On 7 March 2016 at 23:45, Eric Harney wrote:
>
>
> I'm not really sure that writing a "hacking" check for this is a
> worthwhile investment. (It's not a hacking check really, but something
> more like what you're describing, but that's beside the point.)
>
> We should just be looking for large,
On 03/06/2016 09:35 PM, John Griffith wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jay S. Bryant > wrote:
>
>> Ivan,
>>
>> I agree that our testing needs improvement. Thanks for starting this
>> thread.
>>
>> With regards to adding a hacking check for tests that run too long ... are
>> you thinking t
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jay S. Bryant wrote:
> Ivan,
>
> I agree that our testing needs improvement. Thanks for starting this
> thread.
>
> With regards to adding a hacking check for tests that run too long ... are
> you thinking that we would have a timer that checks or long running job
Ivan,
I agree that our testing needs improvement. Thanks for starting this
thread.
With regards to adding a hacking check for tests that run too long ...
are you thinking that we would have a timer that checks or long running
jobs or something that checks for long sleeps in the testing code
On 02/03, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote:
> I'll try to implement such scenario and step-by-step guideline soon.
>
That would be fantastic!! Thank you very much
Looking forward to it. :-)
Cheers,
Gorka.
> Regards,
> Ivan Kolodyazhny,
> http://blog.e0ne.info/
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Eric
Hi,
I will try to be short.
- Voting unit test coverage job is ready, and you can just use it as is
from rally source code:
you need this file
https://github.com/openstack/rally/blob/master/tests/ci/cover.sh
and this change in tox:
https://github.com/openstack/rally/blob/master/tox.ini#L51-
On 03/02/2016 04:11 PM, Gorka Eguileor wrote:
> On 02/03, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote:
>> Eric,
>>
>> There are Gorka's patches [10] to remove API Races
>>
>>
>> [10]
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/cinder+branch:master+topic:fix/api-races-simplified
>>
> I looked at Rally a long t
I'll try to implement such scenario and step-by-step guideline soon.
Regards,
Ivan Kolodyazhny,
http://blog.e0ne.info/
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Eric Harney wrote:
> On 03/02/2016 10:07 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote:
> > Eric,
> >
> > For now, we test Cinder API with some concurrency only wi
On 03/02/2016 10:07 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote:
> Eric,
>
> For now, we test Cinder API with some concurrency only with Rally, so, IMO,
> it's reasonable get more scenarios for API races fixes.
>
> It's not a hard task to implement new scenarios, they are pretty simple:
> [11] and [12]
>
Sure,
On 02/03, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote:
> Eric,
>
> There are Gorka's patches [10] to remove API Races
>
>
> [10]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/cinder+branch:master+topic:fix/api-races-simplified
>
I looked at Rally a long time ago so apologies if I'm totally off base
here, bu
Eric,
For now, we test Cinder API with some concurrency only with Rally, so, IMO,
it's reasonable get more scenarios for API races fixes.
It's not a hard task to implement new scenarios, they are pretty simple:
[11] and [12]
[11]
https://github.com/openstack/rally/blob/master/rally/plugins/opens
Mailing List (not for usage questions) <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal: changes to our current
> testing process
>
>
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> There are Gorka's patches [10] to remove API Races
>
>
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal: changes to our current testing
process
Eric,
There are Gorka's patches [10] to remove API Races
[10]
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/cinder+branch:master+topic:fix/api-
On 03/02/2016 09:36 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote:
> Eric,
>
> There are Gorka's patches [10] to remove API Races
>
>
> [10]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/cinder+branch:master+topic:fix/api-races-simplified
>
> Regards,
> Ivan Kolodyazhny,
> http://blog.e0ne.info/
>
So the
Eric,
There are Gorka's patches [10] to remove API Races
[10]
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/cinder+branch:master+topic:fix/api-races-simplified
Regards,
Ivan Kolodyazhny,
http://blog.e0ne.info/
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Eric Harney wrote:
> On 03/02/2016 06:25 AM,
On 03/02/2016 06:25 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Here are my thoughts and proposals how to make Cinder testing process
> better. I won't cover "3rd party CI's" topic here. I will share my opinion
> about current and feature jobs.
>
>
> Unit-tests
>
>- Long-running tests. I hop
t; Scott D'Angelo (scottda)
>
> From: Ivan Kolodyazhny [e...@e0ne.info]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 4:25 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal: changes to our current testing
> process
>
> Hi Te
ngelo (scottda)
From: Ivan Kolodyazhny [e...@e0ne.info]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 4:25 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal: changes to our current testing
process
Hi Team,
Here are my thoughts and proposals h
Hi Ivan!
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Here are my thoughts and proposals how to make Cinder testing process
> better. I won't cover "3rd party CI's" topic here. I will share my opinion
> about current and feature jobs.
>
>
> Unit-tests
>
>- Long-runn
Hi Team,
Here are my thoughts and proposals how to make Cinder testing process
better. I won't cover "3rd party CI's" topic here. I will share my opinion
about current and feature jobs.
Unit-tests
- Long-running tests. I hope, everybody will agree that unit-tests must
be quite simple and
24 matches
Mail list logo
