Hi Steve, Currently travis runs all simulator tests(marvin tests which does not require any hardware, tagged with requierd_hardware=false) on every PR. If any test fails it updates the PR and marks it red. IMO apart from 2 LGTMs travis test pass is also mandatory for PR merge.
Thanks, Sanjeev N Chief Product Engineer@Accelerite On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> wrote: > Awesome, thanks Remi. I will review this. > > *Will STEVENS* > Lead Developer > > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Remi Bergsma <rberg...@schubergphilis.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Will, > > > > We used this to test hundreds of PRs: > > https://github.com/schubergphilis/MCT-shared/. I can talk you through it > > sometime next week or so if you want. > > > > Regards, > > Remi > > > > > > On 01/03/16 21:50, "williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of Will Stevens" > < > > williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of wstev...@cloudops.com> wrote: > > > > >Thanks Paul. Great to hear you are planning to make everything > available > > >and you are willing to take contributions from the community. > > > > > >I am currently trying to get up to speed on everything that has been > done > > >and all the different pieces in play. I would like to have a CI in > place > > >(even if it is only locally on my hardware) for testing PRs for 4.9. My > > >focus right now is solving the CI problem, so I am interested in any > > >developments on this front. > > > > > >We have Travis doing smoke tests on every PR right now. Travis is free > > for > > >open source projects. Is there a reason we are not doing more extensive > > >tests with Travis since it is already integrated into github? Like > maybe > > >running the simulator on every PR? I think this could be a good first > > step > > >to weed out some of the PRs that are likely to fail a full CI run. > > > > > >Cheers, > > > > > >*Will STEVENS* > > >Lead Developer > > > > > >*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > >420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > > >w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > > > >On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Will, > > >> > > >> It will be 100% open source. The $dayjob has blocked the team from > > working > > >> on it recently. I'd like to get some of our ideas into the CloudStack > > wiki > > >> this week before I go on leave for a week. > > >> Rohit has created a repo for us: > https://github.com/shapeblue/Trillian > > >> (which looks a bit sad at the moment - I hope to push our Ansible > roles > > >> for building mgmt. servers and Marvin boxes into it this week also) > > >> > > >> Internally we're planning a two week sprint on it starting 14th March. > > >> Having to dip in and out of this effort is making it very difficult to > > get > > >> anywhere > > >> > > >> I think the biggest part of the work will be to get Marvin up to > > scratch, > > >> the log output from the tests is pretty bad. > > >> > > >> We very much want this to be a community 'thing', and we're happy to > > work > > >> with everyone/anyone to get there. > > >> > > >> Any ideas on the most effective way to have a number of people on > this - > > >> I'm all ears. > > >> In the meantime I'll try to make good on my promises to get our ideas > > >> visible to everyone... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Paul Angus > > >> VP Technology , ShapeBlue > > >> > > >> > > >> t: @cloudyangus<tel:@cloudyangus> > > >> > > >> e: paul.an...@shapeblue.com<mailto:paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > > >> | w: www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On > > >> Behalf Of Will Stevens > > >> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:52 PM > > >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: Important Pending Items > > >> > > >> @Paul and @Bharat, thank you for the quality write-ups on this topic. > > >> > > >> re:Paul's Details: > > >> I share a lot of your thoughts on this. The hypervisor in hypervisor > > setup > > >> with the ability to test multiple environments is also core to my > > thinking. > > >> I can't find any details on Trillian, other than what is in this > > thread. Is > > >> it open source and freely available? This is being developed at > > ShapeBlue? > > >> > > >> re:Bharat's Details: > > >> This seems like it is the most likely candidate for being able to > offer > > >> value in the short term. Thank you for the work documenting it and > > making > > >> the source available. I still need to review the code. This approach > > will > > >> take quite a bit of work get setup initially, but once setup, it looks > > like > > >> it will do the trick. By using only freely available software makes it > > more > > >> accessible than some options which have been suggested in the past. > > >> > > >> My thoughts on the topic: > > >> - I think it is important that the CI can test all the different > > >> hypervisors and any hardware integrations available in the > environment. > > >> - Ideally the CI tool would be easily distributed and installed at > > >> multiple sites. Every company who depends on ACS will have their own > > >> configuration, hardware and mission critical features. If the CI can > be > > >> distributed (as independent installs), it will reduce the load on any > > >> specific site and it will enable companies who have specific hardware > in > > >> their direct path to success the ability to validate their use case. > > >> - I think a standardized CI output is also important. Ideally the > > summary > > >> of the CI run would be posted back to the PR thread. I think it is > also > > >> important to push the detailed logs to a central location so others > can > > >> review them. Ideally, links to the detailed logs would also be pushed > to > > >> the PR thread. > > >> - I think there should be multiple tiers of testing. Basic simulator > > >> testing and full runs. We may be able to setup simulator testing > using a > > >> Docker container. I think @pdion891 has put some work into this that I > > may > > >> be able to build on. > > >> - I think it is probably too ambitious to do CI on every PR before > > merge, > > >> but ideally we would We may have to only CI the master branch for now > > and > > >> revert any PR that causes it to fail. > > >> > > >> I have been digging into this quite a bit today. I will continue > working > > >> on this as it is very important to me for the 4.9 release. I would > like > > to > > >> setup a CI environment locally as well to help validate and contribute > > to > > >> the effort. I have some hardware I can throw at this, so I will be > > working > > >> to get something setup to start testing ASAP. > > >> > > >> If I can work off either (or both) of your work, I would appreciate > it. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> > > >> *Will STEVENS* > > >> Lead Developer > > >> > > >> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > >> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw > > >> @CloudOps_ > > >> > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Bharat Kumar < > bharat.ku...@citrix.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi Paul, > > >> > > > >> > The goals and functionality of the CI on which we are working are > the > > >> > same (please review the FS< > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Test+bed+orches > > >> > trator+and+test+runner+to+enable+continuos+integration> > > >> > ), The difference being the method of implementation. We are not > using > > >> > nested virtualisation to create test environments. The work on CI > > >> > began long back but unfortunately due to other priorities we could > not > > >> > work on a continuous basis and bring it to completion. > > >> > > > >> > I agree that we should come to a consensus on what the community > wants > > >> > from the CI. IMHO the basic and immediate requirement would be to > have > > >> > a stable system to test the PRs and post results. Once we have this, > > >> > we can talk about providing test setups to the community and next > > >> > steps. I think the availability of hardware has been a big hurdle > > >> > (even if we use virtualisation). > > >> > > > >> > Instead of working independently on the same thing let us work on > this > > >> > together. I will share what we have currently, we can use it, or > parts > > >> > of it (some of it is there at > > >> > https://github.com/bvbharatk/cloudstack-automation, but it is not > > >> > organised as in cannot be run out of the box). While virtualisation > is > > >> > good from the ease of orchestration and resource utilisation point > of > > >> > view, it has other problems like compatibility/dependencies issues. > > >> > Also it might tie the CI to a particular Hypervisor like ESXi as you > > >> have pointed out. > > >> > > > >> > So let us discuss on how to proceed further, and get things rolling. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Bharat. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 11-Feb-2016, at 9:44 PM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com > > <mailto: > > >> > paul.an...@shapeblue.com>> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hi Bharat, > > >> > > > >> > Early last week I opened a discussion thread around the aims of > > >> > Trillian which we had begun working on as a CI/CD platform for the > > >> > community hardware (as well as individual use). Please could you > > >> > elaborate on where there is/isn't cross-over? In terms of > > >> > functionality and goals rather than method. It would be great to get > > >> > community consensus around what we want from our centralised CI/CD. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Project: Trillian > > >> > We have been working on PoC of a CI environment design which will: > > >> > * Provide fast build or rebuild of environments for testing. > > >> > * Enable multiple independent concurrent builds > > >> > * Be available on-demand through automation or individual request. > > >> > * Be capable of fully utilising all available hardware > > >> > * Flexible enough to be used to build super-realistic development > > >> > environments. > > >> > We intend to contribute and maintain our work within the Apache > repos. > > >> > However, we are currently building the POC, figuring out the > > >> > requirements (and quirks) of the individual pieces, before pushing > > >> > something concrete for to the community to review. > > >> > > > >> > We envision that Trillian would cater for a number of use cases: > > >> > 1. CloudStack community integration testing of master against > multiple > > >> > deployment scenarios (using ASF infra) 2. CloudStack community > > >> > integration testing of PRs against multiple deployment scenarios > > >> > (using ASF infra) 3. Organisations/individuals running the full > suites > > >> > of tests available in Marvin against any physical environment they > > >> > have. > > >> > 4. Organisations/individuals deploying and running the full suites > of > > >> > tests available in Marvin against virtualised infrastructures which > > >> > can be deployed by Marvin. > > >> > As we intend Trillian to test multiple environments concurrently, we > > >> > use nested virtualization on ESXi hosts (our testing has shown that > > >> > this is the only hypervisor which can support the nested > > >> > virtualisation of all other hypervisors with reasonable > performance). > > >> > We use Ansible to deploy and configure all aspects of the build as > > >> > this will greatly lower the barrier to entry for independent > testers. > > >> > We use CloudStack to provision the management server and virtualised > > >> > (nested) hosts on the physical hosts. We are creating Ansible > > >> > playbooks and roles which can: > > >> > 1. Create guest instances using Rene's Ansible 2.0 CloudStack > modules > > >> > - a Marvin VM, a Mgmt Server (CentOS or Ubuntu), any number of > compute > > >> > hosts (KVM, vSphere or XenServer. Hyper-V later) 2. Configure hosts > > >> > (inc. installing the relevant CloudStack agent where > > >> > required) > > >> > 3. Install required ACS packages on management server 4. Configure a > > >> > zone (including adding the compute hosts) via Marvin. > > >> > 5. Run the required Marvin tests. > > >> > 6. Return the results > > >> > We may need to propose enhancements to Marvin in order to sync the > > >> > configuration of hosts with the configuration used by Marvin. > > >> > > > >> > Using virtualised test environments, we can have multiple test > > >> > scenarios running concurrently. To do this we have found that it is > > >> > necessary to create pools or ranges of VLANs and IP addresses and > > >> > allocate them to environments. So for any given physical environment > > >> > which will be used for testing in, we take the total range(s) of IPs > > >> > and VLANs available and carve them into non-overlapping chunks > > >> > suitable for concurrent use as mgmt, public and guest networks. > These > > >> > are stored in a MariaDB database. When a range is being used in a > > >> > testing environment, that range is marked as 'inuse' in the > database. > > >> > When creating a test environment, Trillian looks in the database for > > >> > the next available VLAN range, the next available public IP range > and > > >> > so on. The returned values are used to populate a Marvin cfg file > > >> > which in turn will be used to both build the environment and when > > >> > running the Marvin testing. When the virtualised infra is cleaned > up, > > >> > the database will be updated to reflect that the used ranges are > > >> available again. > > >> > This initiative has only recently been started, and as stated > earlier > > >> > we are currently figuring out the requirements (and quirks) of the > > >> > individual pieces and looking for the most suitable wrapper to glue > it > > >> all together. > > >> > Also I have found that Marvin requires a little work to make the > > >> > output more meaningful/readable (especially in the case of errors > and > > >> > exceptions) and to make it a little more intelligent about the tests > > >> > it can/can't run based on the chosen infrastructure components. I > have > > >> > also found unreachable or very slow ISO and template paths hardcoded > > >> > into Marvin or individual tests. > > >> > We plan to enhance tests to address these issues and also reduce > > >> > runtimes where possible. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > <http://www.shapeblue.com/> > > >> > Paul Angus > > >> > VP Technology , ShapeBlue > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > d: +44 203 617 0528 | s: +44 203 603 0540 > > >> <tel:+44%20203%20617%200528%20|%20s:%20+44%20203%20603%200540> > > >> > | m: +44 7711 418784<tel:+44%207711%20418784> > > >> > > > >> > e: paul.an...@shapeblue.com | t: @cloudyangus<mailto: > > >> > paul.an...@shapeblue.com%20|%20t:%20@cloudyangus> | w: > > >> > www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com/> > > >> > > > >> > a: 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. > ShapeBlue > > >> > Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is > operated > > >> > under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria > Ltda > > >> > is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license > from > > >> > Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The > > >> > Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue > > >> > Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark. > > >> > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are > > >> > intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is > addressed. > > >> > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and > do > > >> > not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related > > >> > companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you > > >> > must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or > show > > >> > it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have > > received > > >> this email in error. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > From: Bharat Kumar [mailto:bharat.ku...@citrix.com] > > >> > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 9:57 AM > > >> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > > >> > Subject: Re: Important Pending Items > > >> > > > >> > Hi Sebastien, > > >> > > > >> > As Raja said, we are actively working on it and we will share the > code > > >> > on github soon. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Bharat. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 11-Feb-2016, at 2:41 PM, Raja Pullela <raja.pull...@citrix.com > > >> > <mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com>> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi Sebastien, > > >> > > > > >> > > On item (3) - the BVTs have been running consistently (with same > > >> > passrates) and haven't had the time to automate the process of > > >> > reporting to an external site. > > >> > > Bharat and Sanjeev are working on CI - running BVTs/Regression, > > >> > > working > > >> > on getting it run automatically and consistently. > > >> > > Hope to see it ready soon. > > >> > > > > >> > > Best, > > >> > > Raja > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > > >> > > From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] > > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:29 PM > > >> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > > >> > > Subject: Important Pending Items > > >> > > > > >> > > Morning folks, > > >> > > > > >> > > We have several crucial pending items, that we need to resolve > > >> > > before > > >> > moving on: > > >> > > > > >> > > 1- We need an RM for master ( just saw some commits there that > > >> > > should be > > >> > reverted or merged properly in other branches). > > >> > > > > >> > > 2- We need to automate writing release notes, pushing/tagging new > > >> > > docs > > >> > when release come out and announcing releases on website. Currently > > >> > neither > > >> > 4.7 nor 4.8 have been announced. > > >> > > > > >> > > 3- CI is still almost inexistent > > >> > > > > >> > > -Sebastien > > >> > > > >> > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related > > >> services: > > >> > IaaS Cloud Design & Build< > > >> > http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – > rapid > > >> > IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> > > >> > CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> > | > > >> > CloudStack Software Engineering< > > >> > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> > > >> > CloudStack Infrastructure Support< > > >> > http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | > CloudStack > > >> > Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/ > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related > > services: > > >> IaaS Cloud Design & Build< > > >> http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – rapid > > >> IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> > > >> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> | > > >> CloudStack Software Engineering< > > >> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> > > >> CloudStack Infrastructure Support< > > >> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | CloudStack > > >> Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> > > >> > > >
