Thanks everyone for your inputs.
So if Yardstick based approach is the preferred one, then I am thinking of
extending the existing Deployment Factory class with a new generic INSTALLER
type (something like “config-file” or so) which will provide the same interface
as other adapters (ApexAdapter, FuelAdapter…etc), but instead reads from the a
configured pod.yaml file to provide Node information. Plz let me know if you
see any issues with this approach.
One quick question on Yardstick: Looks like Yardstick accepts the custom
pod.yaml file on a per test case basis as shown in the below example. Can it
also accept a global pod.yaml file that can be applied to all or a group of
test cases.
-
file_name: opnfv_yardstick_tc043.yaml
constraint:
installer: xxx
pod: xxx-pod1
task_args:
xxx-pod1: '{"pod_info": "etc/yardstick/.../pod.yaml",
"host": "node1.LF","target": "node2.LF"}'
Thanks
Srikanth
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jose Lausuch
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 10:45 AM
To: Georg Kunz <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing
installer dependent information in the test tools
Hi,
I would vote for having something similar to Yardstick [1] but centralized in
Releng with an easy python lib that enables functions like SCP things to/from
the deployed nodes.
For your third point, log collection shouldn’t be done at test case level. It
should be performed by CI after running the test tools, otherwise you can a
false negative when running those test on non-OPNFV installers.
Regards,
Jose
[1]
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opnfv/yardstick/master/etc/yardstick/nodes/fuel_virtual/pod.yaml
On 11 Oct 2017, at 18:08, Georg Kunz
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
Just to highlight this, from a Dovetail/CVP perspective, the important aspect
is that there are no dependencies on OPNFV-specific resources/lib in order to
be able to run test cases against commercial non-OPNFV deployments.
Having to write an adapter for a particular commercial deployment before you
can run Dovetail is obviously not really an option. So, for tests which require
SSH/SCP access, we need to think about...
* If the adapter can be parameterized, so that we can make it a
configuration option, e.g., specifying login credentials, source and target
directories, etc., similarly to Yardstick.
* Reuse what Yardstick is using?
* If the test case be parameterized such that it does not attempt to gather
logs if used for certification? (limited use, of course)
* …
Cheers
Georg
From:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jose Lausuch
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:40 PM
To: Beierl, Mark <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing
installer dependent information in the test tools
Hi,
With regards to Functest, you can run it on any OpenStack deployment as long as
you provide a proper RC file and meet the requirements on the jumphost (docker,
connectivity to the deployment, …).
However, in some cases, some test cases from feature projects require SSH
access to the deployment and to make things centralized, the deployment handler
was created [1]. This is a library that allows users to get the number of nodes
from the deployment, functions to SCP things from the nodes and some other
utils. The bad part of it is that it only supports Apex, Fuel and OSA for now…
unless someones volunteers to write the other adapters for joid, mcp, compass
osa.. This library might be used to extract the desired logs after
Functest/Yardstick runs in CI to place them in artifact repo and post-analize.
Regards,
Jose
[1] https://git.opnfv.org/releng/tree/modules/opnfv/deployment
On 11 Oct 2017, at 16:23, Beierl, Mark
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello,
StorPerf very much relies on knowledge of the installer to gather information
about the block storage underlay. For example, the number of Ceph nodes, or
even Ceph vs. LVM, is very relevant to the final report. I also wish there
were an installer agnostic method of collecting this information as right now I
keep that code in the ci/daily.sh and other scripts.
With the new releng repository being created, perhaps it is time to start
moving some of the installer specific code there? I also see that being of
benefit when adding XCI support, as technically that would be yet another type
of installer.
Regards,
Mark
Mark Beierl
SW System Sr Principal Engineer
Dell EMC | Office of the CTO
mobile +1 613 314 8106<tel:1-613-314-8106>
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
On Oct 11, 2017, at 02:25, xudan (N)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Srikanth,
As I know, some Yardstick test cases also need to login nodes. Yardstick uses a
file providing all the login information.
You can refer to
https://github.com/opnfv/yardstick/tree/master/etc/yardstick/nodes which gives
some examples.
Hope this will help you.
BR
Dan Xu
From: Srikanth Vavilapalli [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 12:28 PM
To:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Tim Irnich; xudan (N)
Subject: [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing installer dependent
information in the test tools
Hi
I am looking into Jira ticket
“SDNVPN-181<https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/SDNVPN-181>: Function "gather_logs"
restricts to Apex and Fuel”, which raises concerns on having installer
dependent logic in the sdnvpn repo. The issue is, at the end of the sdnvpn test
execution, we are invoking gather_logs() utility which internally tries to
gather the information about all the OpenStack nodes based on the configured
INSTALLER_TYPE in order to run the fetch_logs.sh script on the target OpenStack
nodes
(https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=sdnvpn.git;a=blob;f=sdnvpn/lib/utils.py;h=ad0714ea9dd40ee8305cd17e42695f0176e88328;hb=HEAD#l215)
So, the jira ticket proposes to accept all the needed information about the
OpenStack controllers, compute nodes and the associated username, keys…etc. in
a file format such that these tests can also be run on OPNFV based commercial
products deployed with their custom deployment tools.
So in general, in the test tools, is there any need to have awareness of what
installers being used when we all care about the target OpenStack node IPs,
associated attributes and jumphost IP (in some cases)?
I would like to get the community opinion here. Appreciate your inputs.
Thanks
Srikanth
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
