So from the discussion I gather we should do the following: - Update the jobs to run Infernalis - Split the RGW jobs into smaller chunks where one tests just the RGW and another one tests Keystone integration - Use Liberty (or at least Kilo) for the Keystone integration job - Split the tests more to have a test specifically for cephx functionality - re-enable the tests for CentOS once they work again
Open points from my POV are: - should we test older Ceph versions via Jenkins (this would increase the runtime again) - should we still test CentOS 6 and Ubuntu 12.04 - if yes, where - should we port more of the deprecated rspec-puppet-system tests? things I can think of are: 1) the profile tests 2) the scenario_node_terminus/hiera tests I'm happy to start working on the split of tests and the Infernalis/Liberty version bump tonight. Cheers, David ----- Original Message ----- > Hey Adam, > > A bit late here, sorry. > Ceph works fine with OpenStack Kilo but at the time we developed the > integration tests for puppet-ceph with Kilo, there were some issues > specific to our test implementation and we chose to settle with Juno > at the time. > > On the topic of CI, I can no longer sponsor the third party CI > (through my former employer, iWeb) as I am with Red Hat now. > I see this as an opportunity to drop the custom system tests with > vagrant and instead improve the acceptance tests. > > What do you think ? > > > David Moreau Simard > Senior Software Engineer | Openstack RDO > > dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter] > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Adam Lawson <alaw...@aqorn.com> wrote: > > I'm confused, what is the context here? We use Ceph with OpenStack Kilo > > without issue. > > > > On Nov 23, 2015 2:28 PM, "David Moreau Simard" <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> Last I remember, David Gurtner tried to use Kilo instead of Juno but > >> he bumped into some problems and we settled for Juno at the time [1]. > >> At this point we should already be testing against both Liberty and > >> Infernalis, we're overdue for an upgrade in that regard. > >> > >> But, yes, +1 to split acceptance tests: > >> 1) Ceph > >> 2) Ceph + Openstack > >> > >> Actually learning what failed is indeed challenging sometimes, I don't > >> have enough experience with the acceptance testing to suggest anything > >> better. > >> We have the flexibility of creating different logfiles, maybe we can > >> find a way to split out the relevant bits into another file. > >> > >> [1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153783/ > >> > >> David Moreau Simard > >> Senior Software Engineer | Openstack RDO > >> > >> dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter] > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Andrew Woodward <xar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > I think I have a good lead on the recent failures in openstack / swift / > >> > radosgw integration component that we have since disabled. It looks like > >> > there is a oslo.config version upgrade conflict in the Juno repo we > >> > where > >> > using for CentOS. I think moving to Kilo will help sort this out, but at > >> > the > >> > same time I think it would be prudent to separate the Ceph v.s. > >> > OpenStack > >> > integration into separate jobs so that we have a better idea of which is > >> > a > >> > problem. If there is census for this, I'd need some direction / help, as > >> > well as set them up as non-voting for now. > >> > > >> > Looking into this I also found that the only place that we do > >> > integration > >> > any of the cephx logic was in the same test so we will need to create a > >> > component for it in the ceph integration as well as use it in the > >> > OpenStack > >> > side. > >> > > >> > Lastly un-winding the integration failure seemed overly complex. Is > >> > there a > >> > way that we can correlate the test status inside the job at a high level > >> > besides the entire job passed / failed without breaking them into > >> > separate > >> > jobs? > >> > -- > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > Andrew Woodward > >> > > >> > Mirantis > >> > > >> > Fuel Community Ambassador > >> > > >> > Ceph Community > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > __________________________________________________________________________ > >> > 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
