That’s good to know… Thanks Peri for the fix. From: Jose Lausuch [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 10:40 AM To: Srikanth Vavilapalli <[email protected]> Cc: David McBride <[email protected]>; Tim Irnich <[email protected]>; Tim Rozet <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing installer dependent information in the test tools
Srikanth, That issue has been already fixed https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/45503/ Yes, I think the plugfest is a good forum. Unfortunately I won’t be able to attend but many folks will be there. We can always start the discussion on any of the infra or weekly tech-discuss meetings. Regards, Jose On 18 Oct 2017, at 19:20, Srikanth Vavilapalli <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Jose Yes, the cleaner solution is to move the log collection or any deployer specific actions to outside of test frameworks such that they can be run against any OPNFV compliant platforms. We need to brainstorm in some forum on the best way to achieve this. David, plz help us. For the immediate need, we can add a fix in sdnvpn project such that sdnvpn.lib.utils.get_nodes() returns an empty list of nodes rather than throwing exception if the INSTALLER_TYPE is set to anything else other than “apex” and “fuel”. So this is kind of disabling the sdnvpn LOG collection in other installer types. Plz let me know any comments or inputs… Thanks Srikanth From: Jose Lausuch [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 8:18 AM To: David McBride <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Srikanth Vavilapalli <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Tim Irnich <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Tim Rozet <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing installer dependent information in the test tools IMO, the log collection topic is a CI/Releng function rather than the test framework’s responsibility, we should not discuss it only during the Functest weekly since we would lose audience. @David, will you bring this discussion to the infra or technical weekly meeting? Thanks, Jose On 17 Oct 2017, at 00:32, Srikanth Vavilapalli <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Can we have a quick discussion in any weekly meeting (sdnvpn, functest?) on this topic to pick the best approach to move forward? Also Xu Dan has raised few other concerns on the location of log files and option for disabling the gathering logs…etc. Thanks Srikanth From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jose Lausuch Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:28 AM To: Tim Irnich <[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 Tim, My only concern is that by implementing this function inside the test case, we might run into exceptions raised if there is a problem with SSH keys or whatever other problem accessing the nodes. Collecting logs when the test fails makes sense, but it doesn’t harm if we collect it when it passes as well. Anyway, if we do it only when having failures, I imagine that logic could also be implemented post-job by checking the "criteria": “FAIL" value on the DB and executing some j-job to collect the logs. This logs could be uploaded to artifact repo for further analysis as we do for the Functest logs. Regards, Jose On 13 Oct 2017, at 09:27, Tim Irnich <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Jose, I see the point of avoiding log collection in the code for test execution to avoid false negatives in case something with the log collection itself goes wrong (although I’m wondering a bit if that cannot also be handled by carefully implementing the test pass/fail criteria). There are however cases where we’ll want to collect logs only if a test fails, in order to enable a first tier of offline troubleshooting. You’ll remember the gather_logs function Niko implemented for the bgpvpn tests – that is one example. Can that effectively be handled if we separate things as you suggest? Regards, Tim From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jose Lausuch Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 09:16 To: xudan (N) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Morgan, Jack <[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, When it comes to log collection, I strongly believe it should be done post-job in our CI pipeline, not as part of the test case. Users can always collect logs manually regardless of the installer tools they use… And regarding making it automated in OPNFV after Functest/Yardstick execution, would it make sense to re-use the PDF (Pod Descriptor File)? Otherwise, we are duplicating config files like pod.yaml or new files with information about the servers… @Jack: is there a possibility to include login information in the PDF (user, password, path to private key, …) of the nodes already deployed? Regards, Jose On 12 Oct 2017, at 03:50, xudan (N) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Srikanth, I have one question. Are the paths of all these log files constant for different environment (Apex, Fuel and commercial deployments)? If all paths for different deployments are the same, then using config file to login and getting files can work. If not, there will be some errors even though it can login with the config file. One more question, what logs do SDNVPN get from all nodes? Are they useful for users? If not, can we have an option to disable it? Thanks Dan Xu From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of limingjiang Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 9:24 AM To: Srikanth Vavilapalli Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing installer dependent information in the test tools Hi Srikanth, Yardstick can use a global pod.yaml for test cases. Since each test case default use the “pod.yaml” located in “/etc/yardstick/pod.yaml”. so if you put “pod.yaml” here, it can apply to each test case. The picture you show below is how yardstick test suite customize the input parameters, so it also support each test case with different “pod.yaml” if you give each test case different “pod.yaml” BR, Rex +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ <image001.png> + Mingjiang Li (Rex) Mobile: +86 13761275017 + Shanghai Institute, Huawei + No. 2222, Xinjinqiao Road, Pudong, Shanghai, 201206, P.R.China +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 发件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Srikanth Vavilapalli 发送时间: 2017年10月12日 9:03 收件人: Jose Lausuch; Georg Kunz 抄送: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing installer dependent information in the test tools 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]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jose Lausuch Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 10:45 AM To: Georg Kunz <[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, 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]<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
