Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Zuul job backlog

On October 5, 2018 12:11:51 AM EDT, Abhishek Kekane wrote: >Hi Clark, > >Thank you for the inputs. I have verified the logs and found that >mostly >image import web-download import method related tests are failing. >Now in this test [1] we are trying to download a file from '

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] [infra] [placement] tempest plugins virtualenv

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 03:31:10PM +0100, Chris Dent wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > > > http://logs.openstack.org/14/601614/21/check/placement-tempest-gabbi/f44c185/job-output.txt.gz#_2018-09-28_11_13_25_798683 > > > > Right above this l

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] [infra] [placement] tempest plugins virtualenv

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:39:24PM +0100, Chris Dent wrote: > > I'm still trying to figure out how to properly create a "modern" (as > in zuul v3 oriented) integration test for placement using gabbi and > tempest. That work is happening at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/601614/ > > There was

Re: [openstack-dev] [placement] [infra] [qa] tuning some zuul jobs from "it works" to "proper"

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:55:31AM +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote: > On Thursday, 20 September 2018 04:47:20 CEST Matthew Treinish wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:11:12AM +0900, Ghanshyam Mann wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:29:46 +0900 Monty Taylor > > > w

Re: [openstack-dev] [placement] [infra] [qa] tuning some zuul jobs from "it works" to "proper"

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:11:12AM +0900, Ghanshyam Mann wrote: > On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:29:46 +0900 Monty Taylor > wrote > > On 09/19/2018 09:23 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: > > > On 09/19/2018 08:25 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > > >> > > >> I have a patch in progress to add some simple

Re: [openstack-dev] [python3] tempest and grenade conversion to python 3.6

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 09:52:50PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 9/18/2018 12:28 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > What's probably missing is a version of the grenade job that allows us > > to control that USE_PYTHON3 variable before and after the upgrade. > > > > I see a few different grenade

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][i18n][infra][tc] plan for PDF and translation builds for documentation

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:09:26AM +0900, Ian Y. Choi wrote: > First of all, thanks a lot for nice summary - I would like to deeply > read and put comments later. > > And @mtreinish, please see my reply inline: > > Matthew Treinish wrote on 9/14/2018 5:09 AM: > > On Th

Re: [openstack-dev] [doc][i18n][infra][tc] plan for PDF and translation builds for documentation

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 07:23:53AM -0600, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Michel Peterson's message of 2018-09-13 10:04:27 +0300: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Doug Hellmann > > wrote: > > > > > The longer version is that we want to continue to use the existing > > > tox environment

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][nova] Nominating melwitt for nova stable core

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 03:26:02PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > I hereby nominate Melanie Witt for nova stable core. Mel has shown that she > knows the stable branch policy and is also an active reviewer of nova stable > changes. > > +1/-1 comes from the stable-maint-core team [1] and then

Re: [openstack-dev] [stestr?][tox?][infra?] Unexpected success isn't a failure

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 03:16:14PM -0400, Matthew Treinish wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:16:37AM +0100, Chris Dent wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > > > > It's definitely a bug, and likely a bug in stestr (or one of the lower > &g

Re: [openstack-dev] [stestr?][tox?][infra?] Unexpected success isn't a failure

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:16:37AM +0100, Chris Dent wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > > It's definitely a bug, and likely a bug in stestr (or one of the lower > > level > > packages like testtools or python-subunit), because that's what's genera

Re: [openstack-dev] [stestr?][tox?][infra?] Unexpected success isn't a failure

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:59:42PM -0500, Eric Fried wrote: > In gabbi, there's a way [1] to mark a test as an expected failure, which > makes it show up in your stestr run thusly: > > {0} >

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][tempest-plugins][release][tc][ptl]: Coordinated Release Model proposal for Tempest & Tempest Plugins

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:12:30AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Matthew Treinish's message of 2018-06-26 09:52:09 -0400: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:53:21AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > Excerpts from Andrea Frittoli's message of 2018-06-26 13:35:11 +0100: > > > > On Tue, 26

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][tempest-plugins][release][tc][ptl]: Coordinated Release Model proposal for Tempest & Tempest Plugins

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:53:21AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Andrea Frittoli's message of 2018-06-26 13:35:11 +0100: > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, 1:08 pm Thierry Carrez, wrote: > > > > > Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > My suggestion: tempest has to be compatible with

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat][ci][infra] telemetry test broken on oslo.messaging stable/queens

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 10:47:17AM -0400, Ken Giusti wrote: > Hi, > > The telemetry integration test for oslo.messaging has started failing > on the stable/queens branch [0]. > > A quick review of the logs points to a change in heat-tempest-plugin > that is incompatible with the version of gabbi

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] A culture change (nitpicking)

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:21:35AM +, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > To play devils advocate and as someone that has had to git bisect an ugly > regression once I still think its important not to break trunk. It can be > much harder to deal with difficult issues like that if trunk frequently >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] final stages of python 3 transition

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:51:31PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Following up on this topic, at the Forum discussion last week (see > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-python-2-deprecation-timeline) the > general plan outlined below was acceptable to most of the folks in the > room with a few

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc][ptls] final stages of python 3 transition

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 03:05:34PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/19/2018 07:54 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 07:04:53PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> using: > >> - RBD backend > >> - swift backend > >> - swift+r

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc][ptls] final stages of python 3 transition

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 07:04:53PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/08/2018 06:22 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > >> Glance - Has issues with image upload + uwsgi + eventlet [1] > > > > This actually is a bit misleading. Glance works fine with image upload and > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc][ptls][glance] final stages of python 3 transition

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 07:21:22PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/08/2018 07:55 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > I wrote up a doc about running under > > apache when I added the uwsgi chunked transfer encoding support to glance > > about > > running glance under

Re: [openstack-dev] Should we add a tempest-slow job?

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:45:39AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > The tempest-full job used to run API and scenario tests concurrently, and if > you go back far enough I think it also ran slow tests. Well it's a bit more subtle than that. Skipping slow tests was added right before we introduced

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc][ptls][glance] final stages of python 3 transition

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 03:02:05PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Matthew Treinish's message of 2018-05-08 13:55:43 -0400: > > On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:34:11PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > > > (added [glance] subject tag) > > > > > > Excerpts from Matthew Treinish's message

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc][ptls][glance] final stages of python 3 transition

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:34:11PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > (added [glance] subject tag) > > Excerpts from Matthew Treinish's message of 2018-05-08 12:22:56 -0400: > > On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 05:01:36PM +0100, Graham Hayes wrote: > > > On 08/05/18 16:53, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc][ptls] final stages of python 3 transition

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 05:01:36PM +0100, Graham Hayes wrote: > On 08/05/18 16:53, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-05-08 16:28:46 +0100: > >> On 08/05/18 16:09, Zane Bitter wrote: > >>> On 30/04/18 17:16, Ben Nemec wrote: > > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc][ptls] final stages of python 3 transition

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 04:16:35PM -0500, Ben Nemec wrote: > Resending from an address that is subscribed to the list. Apologies to > those of you who get this twice. > > On 04/30/2018 10:06 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > It would be useful to have more input from PTLs on this issue, so I'm > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] z/VM introducing a new config driveformat

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 09:21:22AM -0700, melanie witt wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:40:20 +0800, Chen Ch Ji wrote: > > According to requirements and comments, now we opened the CI runs with > > run_validation = True > > And according to [1] below, for example, [2] need the ssh validation > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] [infra] Post PTG performance testing needs

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 03:28:57PM -0600, Lance Bragstad wrote: > Hey all, > > Last week during the PTG the keystone team sat down with a few of the > infra folks to discuss performance testing. The major hurdle here has > always been having dedicated hosts to use for performance testing, >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Zuul] requirements-check FAILURE

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:01:13PM +, Kwan, Louie wrote: > Would like to add the following module to openstack.masakari project > > https://github.com/pytransitions/transitions > > Got the following error with zuul requirements-check > > Requirement set([Requirement(package=u'transitions',

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] adding uwsgi to global-requirements

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:50:59PM -0500, Sam Yaple wrote: > > Original Message > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] adding uwsgi to > > global-requirements > > Local Time: December 19, 2017 6:34 PM > > UTC Time: December 19, 2017 11:34 PM > > From:

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements] adding uwsgi to global-requirements

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:34PM -0500, Sam Yaple wrote: > Hello, > > I wanted to bring up the idea of getting uwsgi into the requirements repo. I > seem to recall this being discussed a couple of years back, but for the life > of me I cannot find the thread, so forgive me if I am digging up

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Removal of tempest plugin code from openstack/ironic & openstack/ironic-inspector

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:37:13PM -0700, Julia Kreger wrote: > > And actually I almost think the holiday time is the best time since the > > fewest number of people are going to care. But maybe I'm wrong. I do wonder > > if nobody is around to watch a 3rd Party CI for two weeks, how likely is it

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][tempest][qa] dropping the ironic-inspector-tempest-plugin repo

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 08:22:10PM +0200, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy wrote: > Hi all, > > there exists this repo > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/ironic-inspector-tempest-plugin. > It is basically empty and there's a single pending review adding initial > cookiecutter-generated project stuff.

Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet][qa][ubuntu][neutron] Xenial Neutron Timeouts

From a quick glance at the logs my guess is that the issue is related to this stack trace in the l3 agent logs:

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][infra][devstack] Changes to devstack-core for zuul v3 migration

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 04:34:29PM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > On 10/10/2017 04:22 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Andrea Frittoli > > wrote: > >> - we will treat +1 from infra-core members on devstack changes in the > >> ansible bits as +2 >

[openstack-dev] Recent Changes in os-testr and migrating to stestr

Hi Everyone, People might have noticed the recently os-testr 1.0.0 was recently released and made some pretty big changes to the internals of the ostestr script. ostestr was originally created to replace the local pretty_tox.sh scripts in all the projects with a consistent interface. Because of

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] mod_wsgi support (pike bug?)

On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 01:47:24PM -0400, Mohammed Naser wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've attempted to enable mod_wsgi support in our dev environment with > Puppet however it results in a traceback. I figured it was an > environment thing so I looked into moving the Puppet CI to test using > mod_wsgi

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][I18n][OpenStackClient][Quality Assurance][Security][Telemetry][ec2-api][heat][horizon][ironic][kuryr][magnum][manila][monasca][murano][neutron][octavia][senlin][solu

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 03:46:32PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote: > > Hi All, > In an effort to qualify which projects are likley to be affected if > when we open the requirements repo I generated a list of all repos that: > > 1. Subscribe to requirements management > 2. Do not already have a

Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][api] Backwards incompatible changes based on config

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 03:35:38PM -0400, William M Edmonds wrote: > > Lance Bragstad wrote on 08/04/2017 02:37:40 PM: > > Properly fixing this would result in a 403 -> 204 status code, which > > requires an API version bump according to the interoperability > > guidelines

Re: [openstack-dev] [barbican] Help for Barbican and UWSGI Community Goal

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 04:11:50PM +, Dave McCowan (dmccowan) wrote: > The Barbican team is currently lacking a UWSGI expert. > We need help identifying what work items we have to meet the UWSGI community > goal.[1] > Could someone with expertise in this area review our code and docs [2] and

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] tempest failures when deploying neutron-server in wsgi with apache

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:09:12AM -0700, Kevin Benton wrote: > I've been working on Victor's patch a bit. One thing that isn't clear to me > is how we can get the neutron.conf options loaded when using WSGI. How are > other projects doing this? Most projects are using a default location, for

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] [tc] [all] more tempest plugins (was Re: [tc] [all] TC Report 22)

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:09:56AM +0100, Chris Dent wrote: > A lot of this results, in part, from there being no single guiding > pattern and principle for how (and where) the tests are to be > managed. It sounds like you want to write a general testing guide for openstack. Have you started

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][tc][all] Tempest to reject trademark tests

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:57:00AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-06-01 11:51:50 +0200: > > Graham Hayes wrote: > > > On 01/06/17 01:30, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > >> TBH, it's a bit premature to have the discussion. The

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][tc][all] Tempest to reject trademark tests

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:32:03PM +0900, Ghanshyam Mann wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 04:24:14PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > >> On 2017-05-31 17:18:54 +0100 (+0

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][tc][all] Tempest to reject trademark tests

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 04:24:14PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-05-31 17:18:54 +0100 (+0100), Graham Hayes wrote: > [...] > > Trademark programs are trademark programs - we should have a unified > > process for all of them. Let's not make the same mistakes again by > > creating classes

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][tc][all] Tempest to reject trademark tests (was: more tempest plugins)

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:45:52PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-05-31 15:22:59 + (+), Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2017-05-31 09:43:11 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: > > [...] > > > it's news to me that they're considering reversing course. If the > > > QA team isn't going

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] [tc] [all] more tempest plugins (was Re: [tc] [all] TC Report 22)

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:22:59PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-05-31 09:43:11 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: > [...] > > it's news to me that they're considering reversing course. If the > > QA team isn't going to continue, we'll need to figure out what > > that means and

Re: [openstack-dev] [tempest] Proposing Fanglei Zhu for Tempest core

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:22:44AM +, Andrea Frittoli wrote: > Hello team, > > I'm very pleased to propose Fanglei Zhu (zhufl) for Tempest core. > > Over the past two cycle Fanglei has been steadily contributing to Tempest > and its community. > She's done a great deal of work in making

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][heat][murano][daisycloud] Removing Heat support from Tempest

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 09:29:40AM +1200, Steve Baker wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> > wrote: > > > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:51:13AM +, Andrea Frittoli wrote: > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:33 PM Matthew

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][cinder][ceph] should Tempest tests the backend specific feature?

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:09:32PM -0400, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 05/02/2017 11:49 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 03:36:20PM +0200, Jordan Pittier wrote: > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ghanshyam Mann > > > wrote: > > > > > > > In Cinder,

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][heat][murano][daisycloud] Removing Heat support from Tempest

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:51:13AM +, Andrea Frittoli wrote: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:33 PM Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> > wrote: > > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:49:14AM +0530, Rabi Mishra wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Andr

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][heat][murano][daisycloud] Removing Heat support from Tempest

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:49:14AM +0530, Rabi Mishra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Andrea Frittoli > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:29 AM Rabi Mishra wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Andrea Frittoli <

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 05:00:17AM -0700, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 28/04/17 11:19 -0500, Eric Fried wrote: > > If it's *just* glance we're making an exception for, I prefer #1 (don't > > deprecate/remove [glance]api_servers). It's way less code & > > infrastructure, and it discourages others

Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][gate] tempest slow - where do we execute them in gate?

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:55:28AM -0700, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Jordan Pittier > wrote: > > We don"t run slow tests because the QA team think that they don't bring > > enough value to be executed, every time and everywhere. The idea

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [elections] Available time and top priority

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:16:57AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > New in this TC election round, we have a few days between nominations > and actual voting to ask questions and get to know the candidates a bit > better. I'd like to kick off this new "campaigning period" with a

[openstack-dev] [election][tc] TC candidacy

. Thanks for reading, I hope this outlines where my focus and priorities would be if I'm lucky enough to be elected for another term. Thanks, Matthew Treinish IRC: mtreinish Review history: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/reviewer:mtreinish%2540kortar.org Commit history: https

Re: [openstack-dev] [api][qa][tc][nova][cinder] Testing of a microversioned world

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:34:31PM -0800, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote: > Hi John, > > Now Tempest is testing microversions only for Nova and contains some > testing framework for re-using for another projects. > On this framework, we can implement necessary microversions tests as > we want and

Re: [openstack-dev] Our New Weekly(ish) Test Status Report

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:49:53AM -0500, Matthew Treinish wrote: > Hello, > > We have a few particularly annoying bugs that have been impacting the > reliability of gate testing recently. It would be great if we could get > volunteers to look at these bugs to improve the rel

[openstack-dev] Our New Weekly(ish) Test Status Report

Hello, We have a few particularly annoying bugs that have been impacting the reliability of gate testing recently. It would be great if we could get volunteers to look at these bugs to improve the reliability of our testing as we start working on Pike. These two issues have been identified by

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][swg] per-project "Business only" moderated mailing lists

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 06:18:10PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Dean Troyer wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > >> This is not for users who only want to see some projects. That is a well > >> understood space and the mailman filtering does

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-stable-maint] Stable check of openstack/tempest failed

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:25:39AM +, A mailing list for the OpenStack Stable Branch test reports. wrote: > Build failed. > > - periodic-tempest-dsvm-full-ubuntu-trusty-mitaka > http://logs.openstack.org/periodic-stable/periodic-tempest-dsvm-full-ubuntu-trusty-mitaka/27fe759/ > : SUCCESS

[openstack-dev] [QA][all] Pike PTG Tempest Plugin Cross Project Session

Hi Everyone, I just wanted to advertise that we will be hosting a 1 hr cross project session at the PTG next week. We have the Macon discussion room at the PTG reserved [1] on Tuesday between 9:30a to 10:30a. The intent of this session is for anyone who is producing or consuming tempest plugins

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [gate] [all] openstack services footprint lead to oom-kill in the gate

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 11:10:22AM -0500, Matthew Treinish wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:24:54PM -0800, Armando M. wrote: > > Hi, > > > > [TL;DR]: OpenStack services have steadily increased their memory > > footprints. We need a concerted way to addres

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [gate] [all] openstack services footprint lead to oom-kill in the gate

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:24:54PM -0800, Armando M. wrote: > Hi, > > [TL;DR]: OpenStack services have steadily increased their memory > footprints. We need a concerted way to address the oom-kills experienced in > the openstack gate, as we may have reached a ceiling. > > Now the longer version:

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [gate] [all] openstack services footprint lead to oom-kill in the gate

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 04:27:51AM +, Dolph Mathews wrote: > What made most services jump +20% between mitaka and newton? Maybe there is > a common cause that we can tackle. Yeah, I'm curious about this too, there seems to be a big jump in Newton for most of the project. It might not a be a

Re: [openstack-dev] [elastic-recheck] Miscellaneous questions of potential Neutron interest

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:38:58AM -0800, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Hi all, > > we were looking at expanding usage of elastic-recheck in Neutron, and > several questions popped up that we would like to ask. > > 1. Are all jobs eligible for coverage with queries? The reason we ask > is that there

Re: [openstack-dev] gate jobs - papercuts

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 01:19:41PM -0500, Steve Martinelli wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Davanum Srinivas > wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > Here's the list of job failures that failed in the gate queue. > > captured with my script[1][2] since around 10:00 AM today.

Re: [openstack-dev] gate jobs - papercuts

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:49:13PM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Folks, > > Here's the list of job failures that failed in the gate queue. > captured with my script[1][2] since around 10:00 AM today. All jobs > failed with just one bad test. > >

[openstack-dev] [all][QA][goals] Proposed Pike Goal Split Out Tempest Plugins

Hi Everyone, I pushed out a proposed OpenStack-wide goal for the Pike cycle to split all tempest plugins into separate repos: https://review.openstack.org/369749 At a high level all that is being proposed is that we split out any tempest plugins that are bundled in a service repo into a

Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][tempest][api] community images, tempest tests, and API stability

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 02:57:20PM -0500, Brian Rosmaita wrote: > Something has come up with a tempest test for Glance and the community > images implementation, and I think it could use some mailing list > discussion, as everyone might not be aware of the patch where the > discussion is happening

Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Video Meetings - input requested

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 01:16:13AM +0800, Jeffrey Zhang wrote: > TC > ​, > ​ > Some contributors in kolla have had unscheduled video meetings. This has > resulted in complaints about inclusiveness. Some contributors can’t even > make > the meeting we have, and another scheduled video meeting might

Re: [openstack-dev] [tempest] Test case for new feature failed in Jenkins check against old release

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 03:49:27PM +0800, Bruce Tan wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I am having a problem writing/updating a test case to verify some new > feature (in my case, the "description" field for a network). > > Acoording to Tempest Coding Guide[1], I am supposed to check if the > related

Re: [openstack-dev] os-loganalyze, project log parsing, or ...

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:32:17PM -0400, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 02:40 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:03:35PM -0400, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Matt

Re: [openstack-dev] os-loganalyze, project log parsing, or ...

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:03:35PM -0400, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:36:07AM -0400, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > Recently I noticed that

Re: [openstack-dev] os-loganalyze, project log parsing, or ...

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:36:07AM -0400, Andrew Laski wrote: > Hello all, > > Recently I noticed that people would look at logs from a Zuul née > Jenkins CI run and comment something like "there seem to be more > warnings in here than usual." And so I thought it might be nice to > quantify that

Re: [openstack-dev] [tempest]Tempest test concurrency

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:44:51AM -0400, Bob Hansen wrote: > > > I have been looking at some of the stackviz output as I'm trying to improve > the run time of my thrid-party CI. As an example: > >

[openstack-dev] Announcing firehose.openstack.org

Hi Everyone, I wanted to announce the addition of a new infra service we started running recently, the firehose. Running at firehose.openstack.org the firehose is an MQTT based unified message bus for infra services. The concept behind is it that there are a lot of infra services many of which

Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] Running Tempest tests for a customized cloud

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:27:29AM +, Elancheran Subramanian wrote: > Hello Punal, > We do support both V2 and V3, that’s just a example I’ve stated BTW. We do > have our own integration tests which are pretty much covers all our > integration points with openstack. But we would like to

Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] Running Tempest tests for a customized cloud

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:40:07PM +, Elancheran Subramanian wrote: > Hello There, > I’m currently playing with using Tempest as our integration tests for our > internal and external clouds, facing some issues with api which are not > supported in our cloud. For ex, listing domains isn’t

Re: [openstack-dev] Let's drop the postgresql gate job

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:33:59AM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 08/18/2016 10:00 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > It's that time of year again to talk about killing this job, at least > > from the integrated gate (move it to experimental for people that care > > about postgresql, or make it

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:52:55AM -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Ben Swartzlander > wrote: > > > > > A big source of problems IMO is that tempest doesn't have stable branches. > > We use the master branch of tempest to test stable branches

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:56:09AM -0700, Clay Gerrard wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> > wrote: > > > When we EOL a branch all of the infrastructure for running any ci against > > it goes away. > > > But...

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:16:02PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:28:52PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean M

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:39:55AM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-08-09 15:56:57 -0700 (-0700), Mike Perez wrote: > > As others have said and as being a Cinder stable core myself, the status-quo > > and this proposal itself are terrible practices because there is no testing > > behind it,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:28:52PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > . > > > > > > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by the time this topic came > > > up. On the issue of out-of-tree drivers, I specifically offered

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 07:40:56PM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 8 August 2016 at 18:31, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> wrote: > > > > > This argument comes up at least once a cycle and there is a reason we > > don't do > > this. When we EO

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:47:53AM -0500, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > > Unless you manage to get it approved for the global policy, I think > > you will effectively make your stable:follows-policy tag obsolete, > > and then it should be removed from your project. Read the > > requirements: > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][grafana][infra] how to read grafana

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 02:40:31PM +0200, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > Hi, > > I was looking at grafana today, and spotted another weirdness. > > See the periodic jobs dashboard: > > http://grafana.openstack.org/dashboard/db/neutron-failure-rate?panelId=4 > > Currently it shows for me 100% failure

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Next steps for proxy API deprecation

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:21:53PM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > On 07/26/2016 01:14 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > On 7/26/2016 11:59 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > >> Now that the 2.36 microversion change has merged [1], we can work on the > >> python-novaclient changes for this microversion. > >> > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Next steps for proxy API deprecation

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:14:03PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 7/26/2016 11:59 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > Now that the 2.36 microversion change has merged [1], we can work on the > > python-novaclient changes for this microversion. > > > > At the midcycle we agreed [2] to also return a

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][qa] When do we need tests for microversions in Tempest?

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:55:33PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > There are several changes in Tempest right now trying to add response schema > validation for the 2.26 microversion which added server tags to the server > GET response. This is needed for anything testing a microversion >=2.26, >

Re: [openstack-dev] [grenade] upgrades vs rootwrap

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 11:41:56AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 7/6/2016 10:55 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > > > Well, for better or worse rootwrap filters are put in /etc and treated like > > a > > config file. What you're essentially saying is

Re: [openstack-dev] [grenade] upgrades vs rootwrap

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 06:20:30PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Matthew Treinish wrote: > > > [...] > > > Am I missing something else here? > > > > Well, for better or worse rootwrap filters are put in /etc and treated like > > a > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [grenade] upgrades vs rootwrap

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 10:34:49AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 6/27/2016 6:24 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 06/26/2016 10:02 PM, Angus Lees wrote: > > > On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 at 20:48 Sean Dague > > > wrote: > > > > > > On 06/24/2016 05:12 AM,

Re: [openstack-dev] [tempest][nova][defcore] Add option to disable some strict response checking for interop testing

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 04:26:49PM -0700, Mike Perez wrote: > On 15:12 Jun 14, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:41:10PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > Excerpts from Matthew Treinish's message of 2016-06-14 14:21:27 -0400: > > > > On Tue, Ju

Re: [openstack-dev] [tempest][nova][defcore] Add option to disable some strict response checking for interop testing

and not that of the working group > > > > > > itself, which may independently reject the idea outside of the > > > > > > response from the upstream devs. > > > > > > > > > > > > I posted a link to this thread to the De

Re: [openstack-dev] [tempest][nova][defcore] Add option to disable some strict response checking for interop testing

I posted a link to this thread to the DefCore mailing list to make > > > > that working group aware of the outstanding issues. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 14, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tempest][nova][defcore] Add option to disable some strict response checking for interop testing

devs. > > > > I posted a link to this thread to the DefCore mailing list to make > > that working group aware of the outstanding issues. > > > > > On Jun 14, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> > > > wrote: > > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [tempest] the project specific config option not generated together with tempest.conf.sample

Just a note, please don't start a new thread as a reply to an existing thread. (well unless you remove the In-Reply-To header from the message) There is more details on this here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/MailingListEtiquette#Threading I almost missed this because it was part of a

Re: [openstack-dev] [tempest][nova][defcore] Add option to disable some strict response checking for interop testing

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:42:16PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Matthew Treinish's message of 2016-06-14 15:12:45 -0400: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:41:10PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > Excerpts from Matthew Treinish's message of 2016-06-14 14:21:27 -0400: > > > > On Tue,

Re: [openstack-dev] [tempest][nova][defcore] Add option to disable some strict response checking for interop testing

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:19:54PM -0700, Chris Hoge wrote: > > > On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:57:05AM -0700, Chris Hoge wrote: > >> Last year, in response to Nova micr

  1   2   3   4   >