On 00:21 Tue 31 Mar , Rochelle Grober wrote:
> Top posting… I believe the main issue was a problem with snapshots that
> caused false negatives for most cinder drivers. But, that got fixed.
I don't know what you're talking about here. Are you saying there was an
issue with the Tempest tests t
On 31 March 2015 at 01:35, John Griffith wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Doug Wiegley <
> doug...@parksidesoftware.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
> - Test relies on some “optional” feature, like overlapping IP subnets that
>> the backend doesn’t support. I’d argue it’s another case of broken
Griffith [mailto:john.griffi...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 8:12 PM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-Dev] [third-party-ci]
> Clarifications on the goal and skipping tests
>
>
>
>
>
] Clarifications on
the goal and skipping tests
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Rochelle Grober
mailto:rochelle.gro...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Top posting… I believe the main issue was a problem with snapshots that caused
false negatives for most cinder drivers. But, that got fixed. Unfortu
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Rochelle Grober wrote:
> Top posting… I believe the main issue was a problem with snapshots that
> caused false negatives for most cinder drivers. But, that got fixed.
> Unfortunately, we haven’t yet established a good process to notify third
> parties when skip
Top posting… I believe the main issue was a problem with snapshots that caused
false negatives for most cinder drivers. But, that got fixed. Unfortunately,
we haven’t yet established a good process to notify third parties when skipped
tests are fixed and should be “unskipped”. Maybe tagging t
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Doug Wiegley
wrote:
> A few reasons, I’m sure there are others:
>
> - Broken tests that hardcode something about the ref implementation. The
> test needs to be fixed, of course, but in the meantime, a constantly
> failing CI is worthless (hello, lbaas scenario tes
A few reasons, I’m sure there are others:
- Broken tests that hardcode something about the ref implementation. The test
needs to be fixed, of course, but in the meantime, a constantly failing CI is
worthless (hello, lbaas scenario test.)
- Test relies on some “optional” feature, like overlapping
This may have already been raised/discussed, but I'm kinda confused so
thought I'd ask on the ML here. The whole point of third party CI as I
recall was to run the same tests that we run in the official Gate against
third party drivers. To me that would imply that a CI system/device that
marks it
