I can confirm we currently have Zero HyperV tests in CI. Once we have more people contributing to CI we can try to get better coverage, but right now I am pretty much just testing on KVM. I know the accelerite guys are testing on Xen. Once I freeze, I will try to do testing of master in as many setups as I can, but I can't do that all the time because I just don't have the bandwidth (in terms of my time) to be able to do that.
Our system is far from perfect right now, but I am slowly trying to close that gap... *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com > wrote: > Also, does this mean that we have zero Hyper-V integration tests run > during CI? > ________________________________________ > From: Tutkowski, Mike <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 10:47 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Variable renaming in classes meant for Agents > > Yeah, it has to go into 4.9. :) Unless no one cares about Hyper-V. > ________________________________________ > From: Rafael Weingärtner <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 10:42 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Variable renaming in classes meant for Agents > > You are right Mike about the “_”. The point is that in some other language > the use of “_” makes sense, whereas in Java it does not, at least not the > way it has being used in ACS. > > We have code conventions, it can be found in [1]. The problem is that it is > a bit outdated and I think it could benefit from some others tutorials. For > instance, a clear and simple tutorial explaining what is a test case and > showing how to create a proper test case; I am referring to the > unit/integration test case that we write using Junit and other tools. > > Also, we lack some information on how to prepare code to be tested. > Once we have that kind of standard defined and tutorials written, we could > work out ways to educate our community. It is not a problem not to know > those things; we cannot expect everyone to know how to use every single > methodology and technology that is out there. But, we can help people to > learn, that is the point of a community, it should be a place where people > exchange ideas and experience in a way that benefits everyone. > > As soon as you open the PR, please let us know, so we can review it and > help you get it merge as soon as possible. I think this is something that > should go in the 4.9 release. > > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Tutkowski, Mike < > mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> > wrote: > > > It sounds like most people don't like a preceding "_" for member > variables > > and that is fine. Do we have any formal Java coding standards for > > CloudStack, by the way? I'm not aware of any. > > > > The main problem here, though, is that this particular piece of code is > > super fragile, so it would be great to harden it up. > > > > I'm going to open a PR and revert the names in those changed "Command" > > files for 4.9. That will solve the immediate problem. > > ________________________________________ > > From: Rafael Weingärtner <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 9:12 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Variable renaming in classes meant for Agents > > > > Hi guys, > > I agree with Daan that if class fields have improper (not descriptive or > > not suitable) names we should change them. However, I do not find the > > change (on variable names) introduced by PR #816 good. It added an > > “_”(underline) before variable names; even though Apache CloudStack has a > > lot of that currently, I think that is a pattern we should avoid. > > > > Your ideas to use annotations to avoid relying on variable names are > great; > > but, let’s not re-create the well here. There is a research [1] that has > > been conducted in 2014 that tackled exactly that problem; the proposal > > presented in [1] decoupled client and server sides from variable name by > > using semantic annotations. The concept, the formalization and the > > experiments are all presented in paper [1]. The serialization and > > deserialization core of the proposal presented in [1] can be found in > [2]. > > > > The idea of decoupling our web APIs from variable names is great, but it > is > > something that will require some effort to be fully and properly > > implemented. If you wish to push that forward count on me. > > > > [1] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6928953&tag=1 > > [2] https://github.com/ivansalvadori/gsonld > > > > > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Guys, we should rename fields that have improper names. I do not agreee > > > with the statement at all. Your two solutions to the serialisation > hazard > > > are both acceptable to me. leaving a non compliant or non explanatory > > name > > > in because it slipped through the nets at some points does not seem > > > acceptable to me. We must improve are code. > > > > > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Tutkowski, Mike < > > > mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for sending out this e-mail, Anshul. > > > > > > > > This is a bit of a strange situation because we need to make sure > > people > > > > are either aware of the fact that properties in Command classes are > > > > serialized (and not change existing variable names) or come up with a > > > less > > > > fragile way of choosing property names when sending data (perhaps > using > > > > annotations). > > > > > > > > At the very least, we should have comments in these classes > indicating > > > the > > > > dangers of changing property names. It might also be beneficial to > have > > > > unit tests in place that expect certain variable names and assert if > > they > > > > are not as expected. > > > > > > > > In the meanwhile, I plan to change the variable names back that were > > > > changed in PR #816. > > > > > > > > Additional thoughts on how this should be addressed long term? > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mike > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: Anshul Gangwar <anshul.gang...@accelerite.com> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 10:47 PM > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > Subject: Variable renaming in classes meant for Agents > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > We should not allow renaming of variables in classes which ends with > > > > Command and TO. As these objects are meant to be consumed by Agents. > > > > > > > > Agents may not be written in java so relying on these variable names > to > > > > get the info. One such example is Hyper-V agent. > > > > > > > > Hyper-V support is currently broken as there are some variables > renamed > > > in > > > > PR https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/816. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Anshul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DISCLAIMER > > > > ========== > > > > This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which > > is > > > > the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is > > intended > > > > only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is > addressed. > > If > > > > you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, > > > retain, > > > > copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received > this > > > > communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all > copies > > of > > > > this message. Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not > accept > > > any > > > > liability for virus infected mails. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Daan > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Rafael Weingärtner > > > > > > -- > Rafael Weingärtner >
