Ivan, BVT is not source of truth. BVT handles couple of scenarios from hundreds. You should rely on swarm test and get parity in % of failed tests.
-- Best regards, Sergii Golovatiuk, Skype #golserge IRC #holser On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ivan Berezovskiy <iberezovs...@mirantis.com > wrote: > Hi, > > First of all, I want to mention (I don't blame anyone), that two patchsets > in bug description > ([0], [1]) were not merged into upstream puppet-openstacklib module (and > commit > messages don't contain links to upstream review). I see only one proposed > patch [2] > from Dmitry Ilyin, which was abandoned at Sep 18. Now it's restored and > those issues should be fixed using it. > > Second, our patches (moving to librarian) were tested several times under > Fuel CI jobs, > on BVTs, smoke_neutron tests with Kilo and Liberty code. Unfortunately, we > didn't find > problems with deployment. > > Third, two weeks passed after merging of our patches for librarian, and > only now > we are speaking about regressions. > > Patch [2] covers missing two commits [0], [1], that's why I suggest to get > it merged > and then recheck issues, because it's very late for reverting. > > > [0] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219668/ > [1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/223676/ > [2] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/220224/ > > 2015-10-19 20:59 GMT+03:00 Sergii Golovatiuk <sgolovat...@mirantis.com>: > >> Hi, >> >> The policy should be revert, IMHO. cherry-pick doesn't guarantee the >> consistency, so it will take more time... Also this way gives time to write >> tests to exclude the regression in future. >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Sergii Golovatiuk, >> Skype #golserge >> IRC #holser >> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Matthew Mosesohn <mmoses...@mirantis.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi Fuelers, >>> >>> It seems we have a regression on two critical bugs because of switching >>> Fuel to puppet-openstacklib: >>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1507685 >>> >>> This regressed to patches that were in Fuel Library that addressed two >>> bugs marked as Critical. >>> >>> We should improve the acceptance criteria for moving to upstream modules >>> to ensure no bugs are regressed that relate to the particular Puppet module >>> being migrated. >>> >>> Secondly, what should our policy be? Revert the switch to upstream >>> module? Or just work on cherry-picking the appropriate fixes? >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Matthew Mosesohn >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Thanks, Ivan Berezovskiy > MOS Puppet Team Lead > at Mirantis <https://www.mirantis.com/> > > slack: iberezovskiy > skype: bouhforever > phone: + 7-960-343-42-46 > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
