John Griffith wrote: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net<mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: On 10/23/2013 10:40 AM, John Griffith wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net<mailto:s...@dague.net> <mailto:s...@dague.net<mailto:s...@dague.net>>> wrote: Dave Kranz has been building a system so that we can ensure that during a Tempest run services don't spew ERRORs in the logs. Eventually, we're going to gate on this, because there is nothing that Tempest does to the system that should cause any OpenStack service to ERROR or stack trace (Errors should actually be exceptional events that something is wrong with the system, not regular events). So I have to disagree with the approach being taken here. Particularly in the case of Cinder and the negative tests that are in place. When I read this last week I assumed you actually meant that "Exceptions" were exceptional and nothing in Tempest should cause Exceptions. It turns out you apparently did mean Errors. I completely disagree here, Errors happen, some are recovered, some are expected by the tests etc. Having a policy and especially a gate that says NO ERROR MESSAGE in logs makes absolutely no sense to me. Something like NO TRACE/EXCEPTION MESSAGE in logs I can agree with, but this makes no sense to me. By the way, here's a perfect example: https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1243485 As long as we have Tempest tests that do things like "show non-existent volume" you're going to get an Error message and I think that you should quite frankly. Ok, I guess that's where we probably need to clarify what "Not Found" is. Because "Not Found" to me seems like it should be a request at INFO level, not ERROR. ERROR from an admin perspective should really be something that would suitable for sending an alert to an administrator for them to come and fix the cloud. >From my perspective as someone who has done Ops in the past, a "Volume Not >Found" can be either info or an error. It all depends on the context. That >said, we need to be able to test ERROR conditions and ensure that they report >properly as ERROR, else the poor Ops folks will always be on the spot for not >knowing that there is a problem. A volume that has gone missing is a problem. > Ops would like an immediate report. They would trigger on the ERROR >statement in the log. On the other hand, if someone/thing fatfingers an >input and requests something that has never existed, then that's just info. We need to be able to test for correctness of errors and process logs with errors in them as part of the test verification. Perhaps a switch in the test that indicates log needs post processing, or a way to redirect the log during a specific error test, or some such? The question is, how do we keep test system logs clean of ERRORs and still test system logs for intentionally triggered ERRORs? --Rocky TRACE is actually a lower level of severity in our log systems than ERROR is. Sorry, by Trace I was referring to unhandled stack/exception trace messages in the logs. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
