Hi David, On 02/12/2015 11:45, David Gurtner wrote: > 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
Sounds good to me. > > 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 Since Ceph stopped testing CentOS 6 and Ubuntu 12.04, even for existing stable versions, I think it will be increasingly difficult for puppet-ceph to support these operating systems. This is not to say this is futile, on the contrary ;-) My 2cts. > 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 >>> >> -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
