---- On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 21:22:46 +0900 Erlon Cruz <sombra...@gmail.com> wrote ---- > > > Em seg, 1 de out de 2018 às 05:26, Balázs Gibizer > <balazs.gibi...@ericsson.com> escreveu: > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Matt Riedemann <mriede...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Nova, cinder and tempest run the nova-multiattach job in their check > > and gate queues. The job was added in Queens and was a specific job > > because we had to change the ubuntu cloud archive we used in Queens > > to get multiattach working. Since Rocky, devstack defaults to a > > version of the UCA that works for multiattach, so there isn't really > > anything preventing us from running the tempest multiattach tests in > > the integrated gate. The job tries to be as minimal as possible by > > only running tempest.api.compute.* tests, but it still means spinning > > up a new node and devstack for testing. > > > > Given the state of the gate recently, I'm thinking it would be good > > if we dropped the nova-multiattach job in Stein and just enable the > > multiattach tests in one of the other integrated gate jobs. > > +1 > > > I initially was just going to enable it in the nova-next job, but we > > don't run that on cinder or tempest changes. I'm not sure if > > tempest-full is a good place for this though since that job already > > runs a lot of tests and has been timing out a lot lately [1][2]. > > > > The tempest-slow job is another option, but cinder doesn't currently > > run that job (it probably should since it runs volume-related tests, > > including the only tempest tests that use encrypted volumes). > > If the multiattach test qualifies as a slow test then I'm in favor of > adding it to the tempest-slow and not lengthening the tempest-full > further. > > +1 On having this on tempest-slow and add this to Cinder, provided that it > would also cover encryption .
+1 on adding multiattach on integrated job. It is always good to cover more features in integrate-gate instead of separate jobs. These tests does not take much time, it should be ok to add in tempest-full [1]. We should make only really slow test as 'slow' otherwise it should be fine to run in tempest-full. I thought adding tempest-slow on cinder was merged but it is not[2] [1] http://logs.openstack.org/80/606880/2/check/nova-multiattach/7f8681e/job-output.txt.gz#_2018-10-01_10_12_55_482653 [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/591354/2 -gmann > gibi > > > > > Are there other ideas/options for enabling multiattach in another job > > that nova/cinder/tempest already use so we can drop the now mostly > > redundant nova-multiattach job? > > > > [1] http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/#1686542 > > [2] http://status.openstack.org/elastic-recheck/#1783405 > > > > -- > > > > 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 > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
