> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Ghanshyam Mann <gm...@ghanshyammann.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Matt Riedemann <mriede...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> The tempest-full job used to run API and scenario tests concurrently, and > >> if > >> you go back far enough I think it also ran slow tests. > >> > >> Sometime in the last year or so, the full job was changed to run the > >> scenario tests in serial and exclude the slow tests altogether. So the > >> API > >> tests run concurrently first, and then the scenario tests run in serial. > >> During that change, some other tests were identified as 'slow' and marked > >> as > >> such, meaning they don't get run in the normal tempest-full job. > >> > >> There are some valuable scenario tests marked as slow, however, like the > >> only encrypted volume testing we have in tempest is marked slow so it > >> doesn't get run on every change for at least nova. > > > > Yes, basically slow tests were selected based on > > https://ethercalc.openstack.org/nu56u2wrfb2b and there were frequent > > gate failure for heavy tests mainly from ssh checks so we tried to > > mark more tests as slow. > > I agree that some of them are not really slow at least in today situation. > > > >> > >> There is only one job that can be run against nova changes which runs the > >> slow tests but it's in the experimental queue so people forget to run it. > > > > Tempest job > > "legacy-tempest-dsvm-neutron-scenario-multinode-lvm-multibackend" > > run those slow tests including migration and LVM multibackend tests. > > This job runs on tempest check pipeline and experimental (as you > > mentioned) on nova and cinder [3]. We marked this as n-v to check its > > stability and now it is good to go as voting on tempest. > > > >> > >> As a test, I've proposed a nova-slow job [1] which only runs the slow > >> tests > >> and only the compute API and scenario tests. Since there currently no > >> compute API tests marked as slow, it's really just running slow scenario > >> tests. Results show it runs 37 tests in about 37 minutes [2]. The overall > >> job runtime was 1 hour and 9 minutes, which is on average less than the > >> tempest-full job. The nova-slow job is also running scenarios that nova > >> patches don't actually care about, like the neutron IPv6 scenario tests. > >> > >> My question is, should we make this a generic tempest-slow job which can > >> be > >> run either in the integrated-gate or at least in nova/neutron/cinder > >> consistently (I'm not sure if there are slow tests for just keystone or > >> glance)? I don't know if the other projects already have something like > >> this > >> that they gate on. If so, a nova-specific job for nova changes is fine > >> for > >> me. > > > > +1 on idea. As of now slow marked tests are from nova, cinder and > > neutron scenario tests and 2 API swift tests only [4]. I agree that > > making a generic job in tempest is better for maintainability. We can > > use existing job for that with below modification- > > - We can migrate > > "legacy-tempest-dsvm-neutron-scenario-multinode-lvm-multibackend" job > > zuulv3 in tempest repo > > - We can see if we can move migration tests out of it and use > > "nova-live-migration" job (in tempest check pipeline ) which is much > > better in live migration env setup and controlled by nova. > > - then it can be name something like > > "tempest-scenario-multinode-lvm-multibackend". > > - run this job in nova, cinder, neutron check pipeline instead of > > experimental. > > Like this - > https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/tempest+branch:master+topic:scenario-tests-job > > > That makes scenario job as generic with running all scenario tests > including slow tests with concurrency 2. I made few cleanup and moved > live migration tests out of it which is being run by > 'nova-live-migration' job. Last patch making this job as voting on > tempest side. > > If looks good, we can use this to run on project side pipeline as voting.
Update on this thread: Old Scenario job "legacy-tempest-dsvm-neutron-scenario-multinode-lvm-multibackend" has been migrated to Tempest as new job named "tempest-scenario-all" job[1] Changes from old job to new job: - This new job will run all the scenario tests including slow with lvm multibackend. Same as old job - Executed the live migration API tests out of it. Live migration API tests runs on separate nova job "nova-live-migration". - This new job runs as voting on Tempest check and gate pipeline. This is ready to use for cross project also. i have pushed the patch to nova, neutron, cinder to use this new job[3] and remove "legacy-tempest-dsvm-neutron-scenario-multinode-lvm-multibackend" from project-config[4]. Let me know your feedback on proposed patches. [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/tempest/tree/.zuul.yaml#n147 [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:run-tempest-scenario-all-job+(status:open+OR+status:merged) [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:run-tempest-scenario-all-job+(status:open+OR+status:merged) [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:drop-legacy-scenario-job+(status:open+OR+status:merged) > > -gmann > > > > > Another update on slow tests is that we are trying the possibility of > > taking back the slow tests in tempest-full with new job > > "tempest-full-parallel" [5]. Currently this job is n-v and if > > everything works fine in this new job then, we can make tempest-full > > job to run the slow tests are it used to do previously. > > > >> > >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/567697/ > >> [2] > >> http://logs.openstack.org/97/567697/1/check/nova-slow/bedfafb/job-output.txt.gz#_2018-05-10_23_46_47_588138 > >> > > > > ..3 > > http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=legacy-tempest-dsvm-neutron-scenario-multinode-lvm-multibackend&i=nope&files=&repos= > > > > ..4 > > https://github.com/openstack/tempest/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22type%3D%27slow%27%22&type= > > > > ..5 > > https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/9c628189e798f46de8c4b9484237f4d6dc6ade7e/.zuul.yaml#L48 > > > > > > > > -gmann > > > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Matt > >> > >> __________________________________________________________________________ > >> > >> 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
