On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM James Slagle <james.sla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Jiří Stránský <ji...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 12.6.2018 15:06, James Slagle wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Wesley Hayutin <whayu...@redhat.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> > >>> I wanted to let everyone know that we have a keystone only deployment > and > >>> upgrade job in check non-voting. I'm asking everyone in TripleO to be > >>> mindful of this job and to help make sure it continues to pass as we > move > >>> it > >>> from non-voting check to check and eventually gating. > >> > >> > >> +1, nice work! > >> > >>> Upgrade jobs are particularly difficult to keep running successfully > >>> because > >>> of the complex workflow itself, job run times and other factors. Your > >>> help > >>> to ensure we don't merge w/o a pass on this job will go a long way in > >>> helping the tripleo upgrades team. > >>> > >>> There is still work to be done here, however it's much easier to do it > >>> with > >>> the check non-voting job in place. > >> > >> > >> The job doesn't appear to be passing at all on stable/queens. I see > >> this same failure on several patches: > >> > >> > http://logs.openstack.org/59/571459/1/check/tripleo-ci-centos-7-scenario000-multinode-oooq-container-upgrades/8bbd827/logs/undercloud/home/zuul/overcloud_upgrade_run_Controller.log.txt.gz > >> > >> Is this a known issue? > > > > > > I think so, or to put it precisely, i only ever looked into making the > job > > work for master (and beyond). > > > > We could look into making it work on Queens too, but personally i think > > effort would be better spent elsewhere at this point. E.g. upd+upg jobs > with > > more complete of services utilizing containerized undercloud (those would > > not validate OC workflow at all, but would give coverage for > > update_tasks/upgrade_tasks), user and dev docs around all lifecycle ops > > (upd, upg, ffwd), upgrade work in the area of TLS by default, upgrade > > handling for external_deploy_tasks (= "how do we upgrade Ceph in Rocky"), > > also perhaps trying to DRY repeated parts of upgrade templates, etc. > > > > If someone wants to step up to iron out Queens issues with that job then > we > > can do it, but my 2 cents would be just to disable the job on Queens and > > focus on the future. > > Sure, I'm just trying to figure out what can safely be ignored. The > tone of the original email was encouraging reviewers not to ignore the > job. Let's remove it from queens then, as right now it's just noise. > I think we missed a patch [1] to correctly set the release for the job. I'll take a look at the results. I may have jumped the gun w/ the tone of the email w/ regards to keeping it running. I'll make the adjustment on queens for now [2]. Thanks for catching that James, Jirka! [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/574417/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/574794 > > > > -- > -- James Slagle > -- > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
