[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8689: Verify effect of changin...
Github user nitt10prashant commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/638#issuecomment-126589627 can you post test results ? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Coverity Issue: Resource Leak fixed
Github user DaanHoogland commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/643#issuecomment-126599320 Thanks @kansal , please change the commit message to point to it. For instance: CLOUDSTACK-8692: resource leak found by the internal coverity instance at Otherwise I'm all right with it --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8677: Call-home functionality ...
Github user DaanHoogland commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/625#discussion_r35954149
--- Diff: setup/db/db/schema-452to460.sql ---
@@ -398,3 +398,5 @@ CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`external_bigswitch_bcf_devices` (
CONSTRAINT `fk_external_bigswitch_bcf_devices__host_id` FOREIGN KEY
(`host_id`) REFERENCES `host`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE,
CONSTRAINT `fk_external_bigswitch_bcf_devices__physical_network_id`
FOREIGN KEY (`physical_network_id`) REFERENCES `physical_network`(`id`) ON
DELETE CASCADE
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
+
+INSERT IGNORE INTO `cloud`.`configuration` VALUES ("Advanced", 'DEFAULT',
'management-server', "usage.report.interval", 7, "Interval (days) between
sending anonymous Usage Reports back to the CloudStack project", "", NULL,
NULL, 0);
--- End diff --
But only if you use new style ConfigKey!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Cloudstack-8693: Adding missing code in t...
Github user DaanHoogland commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/645#issuecomment-126605236 @pritisarap12 the pull request builders report conflicts. If you are sure this is for the branch master, please have a look at those and rebase on top of master's HEAD commit to verify. thanks --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8686:Verify data disk attachme...
Github user DaanHoogland commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/631#issuecomment-126605717 All is green and as there is no other reviews and all tests are green, I am going to say: LGTM. But please someone that understands the full ramifications of the test verify. :+1: --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8689: Verify effect of changin...
Github user pritisarap12 commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/638#issuecomment-126606147 Modified test to check for empty vmList and updating maxguestlimit accordingly. And the test result is- Test hypervisor max limits effect ... === TestName: test_check_hypervisor_max_limit_effect | Status : SUCCESS === ok -- Ran 1 test in 142.770s OK --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8689: Verify effect of changin...
Github user sanju1010 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/638#discussion_r35954965
--- Diff: test/integration/testpaths/testpath_hypervisor_limit.py ---
@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+# distributed with this work for additional information
+# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+#
+# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+#
+# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+# software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
+# specific language governing permissions and limitations
+# under the License.
+""" Test cases for Testing Max Hypervisor Limit
+"""
+from nose.plugins.attrib import attr
+from marvin.cloudstackTestCase import cloudstackTestCase
+from marvin.lib.utils import (cleanup_resources,
+ validateList)
+from marvin.lib.base import (Account,
+ ServiceOffering,
+ VirtualMachine,
+ Host
+ )
+from marvin.lib.common import (get_domain,
+ get_zone,
+ get_template,
+ list_virtual_machines
+ )
+
+
+from marvin.cloudstackAPI import (updateHypervisorCapabilities,
+ listHypervisorCapabilities)
+
+from marvin.codes import PASS
+
+
+class TestMaxHyperviosrLimit(cloudstackTestCase):
+
+@classmethod
+def setUpClass(cls):
+testClient = super(TestMaxHyperviosrLimit, cls).getClsTestClient()
+cls.apiclient = testClient.getApiClient()
+cls.testdata = testClient.getParsedTestDataConfig()
+
+cls.hypervisor = cls.testClient.getHypervisorInfo()
+# Get Zone, Domain and templates
+
+cls.domain = get_domain(cls.apiclient)
+cls.zone = get_zone(cls.apiclient, testClient.getZoneForTests())
+
+cls.template = get_template(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.zone.id,
+cls.testdata["ostype"])
+
+cls._cleanup = []
+hostList = Host.list(cls.apiclient, zoneid=cls.zone.id,
type="Routing")
+cls.host = Host(hostList[0].__dict__)
+Host.update(cls.apiclient, id=cls.host.id, hosttags="host1")
+try:
+cls.skiptest = False
+if cls.hypervisor.lower() not in ['xenserver']:
+cls.skiptest = True
+return
+
+# Create an account
+cls.account = Account.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["account"],
+domainid=cls.domain.id
+)
+
+# Create user api client of the account
+cls.userapiclient = testClient.getUserApiClient(
+UserName=cls.account.name,
+DomainName=cls.account.domain
+)
+# Create Service offering
+cls.service_offering = ServiceOffering.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["service_offering"],
+hosttags="host1"
+)
+
+cls._cleanup = [
+cls.account,
+cls.service_offering,
+]
+except Exception as e:
+cls.tearDownClass()
+raise e
+return
+
+@classmethod
+def tearDownClass(cls):
+try:
+cleanup_resources(cls.apiclient, cls._cleanup)
+except Exception as e:
+raise Exception("Warning: Exception during cleanup : %s" % e)
+
+def setUp(self):
+self.cleanup = []
+if self.skiptest:
+self.skipTest("This test is to be checked on xenserver \
+only Hence, skip for %s" % self.hypervisor)
+
+self.apiclient = self.testClient.getApiClient()
+self.dbclient = self.testClient.getDbConnection()
+
+def tearDown(self):
+try:
+
+cmd =
updateHypervisorCapabilities.updateHypervisorCapabilitiesCmd()
+cmd.id = self.hostCapId
+
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8689: Verify effect of changin...
Github user sanju1010 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/638#discussion_r35955013
--- Diff: test/integration/testpaths/testpath_hypervisor_limit.py ---
@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+# distributed with this work for additional information
+# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+#
+# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+#
+# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+# software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
+# specific language governing permissions and limitations
+# under the License.
+""" Test cases for Testing Max Hypervisor Limit
+"""
+from nose.plugins.attrib import attr
+from marvin.cloudstackTestCase import cloudstackTestCase
+from marvin.lib.utils import (cleanup_resources,
+ validateList)
+from marvin.lib.base import (Account,
+ ServiceOffering,
+ VirtualMachine,
+ Host
+ )
+from marvin.lib.common import (get_domain,
+ get_zone,
+ get_template,
+ list_virtual_machines
+ )
+
+
+from marvin.cloudstackAPI import (updateHypervisorCapabilities,
+ listHypervisorCapabilities)
+
+from marvin.codes import PASS
+
+
+class TestMaxHyperviosrLimit(cloudstackTestCase):
+
+@classmethod
+def setUpClass(cls):
+testClient = super(TestMaxHyperviosrLimit, cls).getClsTestClient()
+cls.apiclient = testClient.getApiClient()
+cls.testdata = testClient.getParsedTestDataConfig()
+
+cls.hypervisor = cls.testClient.getHypervisorInfo()
+# Get Zone, Domain and templates
+
+cls.domain = get_domain(cls.apiclient)
+cls.zone = get_zone(cls.apiclient, testClient.getZoneForTests())
+
+cls.template = get_template(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.zone.id,
+cls.testdata["ostype"])
+
+cls._cleanup = []
+hostList = Host.list(cls.apiclient, zoneid=cls.zone.id,
type="Routing")
+cls.host = Host(hostList[0].__dict__)
+Host.update(cls.apiclient, id=cls.host.id, hosttags="host1")
+try:
+cls.skiptest = False
+if cls.hypervisor.lower() not in ['xenserver']:
+cls.skiptest = True
+return
+
+# Create an account
+cls.account = Account.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["account"],
+domainid=cls.domain.id
+)
+
+# Create user api client of the account
+cls.userapiclient = testClient.getUserApiClient(
+UserName=cls.account.name,
+DomainName=cls.account.domain
+)
+# Create Service offering
+cls.service_offering = ServiceOffering.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["service_offering"],
+hosttags="host1"
+)
+
+cls._cleanup = [
+cls.account,
+cls.service_offering,
+]
+except Exception as e:
+cls.tearDownClass()
+raise e
+return
+
+@classmethod
+def tearDownClass(cls):
+try:
+cleanup_resources(cls.apiclient, cls._cleanup)
+except Exception as e:
+raise Exception("Warning: Exception during cleanup : %s" % e)
+
+def setUp(self):
+self.cleanup = []
+if self.skiptest:
+self.skipTest("This test is to be checked on xenserver \
+only Hence, skip for %s" % self.hypervisor)
+
+self.apiclient = self.testClient.getApiClient()
+self.dbclient = self.testClient.getDbConnection()
+
+def tearDown(self):
+try:
+
+cmd =
updateHypervisorCapabilities.updateHypervisorCapabilitiesCmd()
+cmd.id = self.hostCapId
+
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8686:Verify data disk attachme...
Github user sanju1010 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/631#discussion_r35955247
--- Diff: test/integration/testpaths/testpath_attach_disk_zwps.py ---
@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+# distributed with this work for additional information
+# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+#
+# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+#
+# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+# software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
+# specific language governing permissions and limitations
+# under the License.
+""" Test case for Data Disk Attach to VM on ZWPS Test Path
+"""
+
+from nose.plugins.attrib import attr
+from marvin.cloudstackTestCase import cloudstackTestCase
+from marvin.lib.utils import (cleanup_resources,
+ validateList)
+from marvin.lib.base import (Account,
+ ServiceOffering,
+ DiskOffering,
+ Volume,
+ VirtualMachine,
+ StoragePool
+ )
+from marvin.lib.common import (get_domain,
+ get_zone,
+ get_template
+ )
+
+from marvin.codes import (PASS,
+ ZONETAG1)
+
+
+class TestAttachDataDisk(cloudstackTestCase):
+
+@classmethod
+def setUpClass(cls):
+testClient = super(TestAttachDataDisk, cls).getClsTestClient()
+cls.apiclient = testClient.getApiClient()
+cls.testdata = testClient.getParsedTestDataConfig()
+cls.hypervisor = cls.testClient.getHypervisorInfo()
+
+# Get Zone, Domain and templates
+cls.domain = get_domain(cls.apiclient)
+cls.zone = get_zone(cls.apiclient, testClient.getZoneForTests())
+cls._cleanup = []
+cls.template = get_template(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.zone.id,
+cls.testdata["ostype"])
+cls.skiptest = False
+
+try:
+cls.pools = StoragePool.list(cls.apiclient, zoneid=cls.zone.id)
+except Exception as e:
+cls.skiptest = True
+return
+try:
+
+# Create an account
+cls.account = Account.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["account"],
+domainid=cls.domain.id
+)
+cls._cleanup.append(cls.account)
+
+# Create user api client of the account
+cls.userapiclient = testClient.getUserApiClient(
+UserName=cls.account.name,
+DomainName=cls.account.domain
+)
+# Create Service offering
+cls.service_offering_zone1 = ServiceOffering.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["service_offering"],
+tags=ZONETAG1
+)
+cls._cleanup.append(cls.service_offering_zone1)
+
+# Create Disk offering
+cls.disk_offering = DiskOffering.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["disk_offering"]
+)
+
+cls._cleanup.append(cls.disk_offering)
+
+except Exception as e:
+cls.tearDownClass()
+raise e
+return
+
+@classmethod
+def tearDownClass(cls):
+try:
+cleanup_resources(cls.apiclient, cls._cleanup)
+except Exception as e:
+raise Exception("Warning: Exception during cleanup : %s" % e)
+
+def setUp(self):
+self.apiclient = self.testClient.getApiClient()
+self.dbclient = self.testClient.getDbConnection()
+self.cleanup = []
+
+def tearDown(self):
+try:
+for storagePool in self.pools:
+StoragePool.update(self.apiclient, id=storagePool.id,
tags="")
+
+if hasattr(self, "data_volume_created"):
+data_volumes_list = Volume.list(
+self.userapicl
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8686:Verify data disk attachme...
Github user sanju1010 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/631#discussion_r35955307
--- Diff: test/integration/testpaths/testpath_attach_disk_zwps.py ---
@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+# distributed with this work for additional information
+# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+#
+# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+#
+# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+# software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
+# specific language governing permissions and limitations
+# under the License.
+""" Test case for Data Disk Attach to VM on ZWPS Test Path
+"""
+
+from nose.plugins.attrib import attr
+from marvin.cloudstackTestCase import cloudstackTestCase
+from marvin.lib.utils import (cleanup_resources,
+ validateList)
+from marvin.lib.base import (Account,
+ ServiceOffering,
+ DiskOffering,
+ Volume,
+ VirtualMachine,
+ StoragePool
+ )
+from marvin.lib.common import (get_domain,
+ get_zone,
+ get_template
+ )
+
+from marvin.codes import (PASS,
+ ZONETAG1)
+
+
+class TestAttachDataDisk(cloudstackTestCase):
+
+@classmethod
+def setUpClass(cls):
+testClient = super(TestAttachDataDisk, cls).getClsTestClient()
+cls.apiclient = testClient.getApiClient()
+cls.testdata = testClient.getParsedTestDataConfig()
+cls.hypervisor = cls.testClient.getHypervisorInfo()
+
+# Get Zone, Domain and templates
+cls.domain = get_domain(cls.apiclient)
+cls.zone = get_zone(cls.apiclient, testClient.getZoneForTests())
+cls._cleanup = []
+cls.template = get_template(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.zone.id,
+cls.testdata["ostype"])
+cls.skiptest = False
+
+try:
+cls.pools = StoragePool.list(cls.apiclient, zoneid=cls.zone.id)
+except Exception as e:
+cls.skiptest = True
+return
+try:
+
+# Create an account
+cls.account = Account.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["account"],
+domainid=cls.domain.id
+)
+cls._cleanup.append(cls.account)
+
+# Create user api client of the account
+cls.userapiclient = testClient.getUserApiClient(
+UserName=cls.account.name,
+DomainName=cls.account.domain
+)
+# Create Service offering
+cls.service_offering_zone1 = ServiceOffering.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["service_offering"],
+tags=ZONETAG1
+)
+cls._cleanup.append(cls.service_offering_zone1)
+
+# Create Disk offering
+cls.disk_offering = DiskOffering.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["disk_offering"]
+)
+
+cls._cleanup.append(cls.disk_offering)
+
+except Exception as e:
+cls.tearDownClass()
+raise e
+return
+
+@classmethod
+def tearDownClass(cls):
+try:
+cleanup_resources(cls.apiclient, cls._cleanup)
+except Exception as e:
+raise Exception("Warning: Exception during cleanup : %s" % e)
+
+def setUp(self):
+self.apiclient = self.testClient.getApiClient()
+self.dbclient = self.testClient.getDbConnection()
+self.cleanup = []
+
+def tearDown(self):
+try:
+for storagePool in self.pools:
+StoragePool.update(self.apiclient, id=storagePool.id,
tags="")
+
+if hasattr(self, "data_volume_created"):
+data_volumes_list = Volume.list(
+self.userapicl
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8689: Verify effect of changin...
Github user pritisarap12 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/638#discussion_r35955311
--- Diff: test/integration/testpaths/testpath_hypervisor_limit.py ---
@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+# distributed with this work for additional information
+# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+#
+# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+#
+# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+# software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
+# specific language governing permissions and limitations
+# under the License.
+""" Test cases for Testing Max Hypervisor Limit
+"""
+from nose.plugins.attrib import attr
+from marvin.cloudstackTestCase import cloudstackTestCase
+from marvin.lib.utils import (cleanup_resources,
+ validateList)
+from marvin.lib.base import (Account,
+ ServiceOffering,
+ VirtualMachine,
+ Host
+ )
+from marvin.lib.common import (get_domain,
+ get_zone,
+ get_template,
+ list_virtual_machines
+ )
+
+
+from marvin.cloudstackAPI import (updateHypervisorCapabilities,
+ listHypervisorCapabilities)
+
+from marvin.codes import PASS
+
+
+class TestMaxHyperviosrLimit(cloudstackTestCase):
+
+@classmethod
+def setUpClass(cls):
+testClient = super(TestMaxHyperviosrLimit, cls).getClsTestClient()
+cls.apiclient = testClient.getApiClient()
+cls.testdata = testClient.getParsedTestDataConfig()
+
+cls.hypervisor = cls.testClient.getHypervisorInfo()
+# Get Zone, Domain and templates
+
+cls.domain = get_domain(cls.apiclient)
+cls.zone = get_zone(cls.apiclient, testClient.getZoneForTests())
+
+cls.template = get_template(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.zone.id,
+cls.testdata["ostype"])
+
+cls._cleanup = []
+hostList = Host.list(cls.apiclient, zoneid=cls.zone.id,
type="Routing")
+cls.host = Host(hostList[0].__dict__)
+Host.update(cls.apiclient, id=cls.host.id, hosttags="host1")
+try:
+cls.skiptest = False
+if cls.hypervisor.lower() not in ['xenserver']:
+cls.skiptest = True
+return
+
+# Create an account
+cls.account = Account.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["account"],
+domainid=cls.domain.id
+)
+
+# Create user api client of the account
+cls.userapiclient = testClient.getUserApiClient(
+UserName=cls.account.name,
+DomainName=cls.account.domain
+)
+# Create Service offering
+cls.service_offering = ServiceOffering.create(
+cls.apiclient,
+cls.testdata["service_offering"],
+hosttags="host1"
+)
+
+cls._cleanup = [
+cls.account,
+cls.service_offering,
+]
+except Exception as e:
+cls.tearDownClass()
+raise e
+return
+
+@classmethod
+def tearDownClass(cls):
+try:
+cleanup_resources(cls.apiclient, cls._cleanup)
+except Exception as e:
+raise Exception("Warning: Exception during cleanup : %s" % e)
+
+def setUp(self):
+self.cleanup = []
+if self.skiptest:
+self.skipTest("This test is to be checked on xenserver \
+only Hence, skip for %s" % self.hypervisor)
+
+self.apiclient = self.testClient.getApiClient()
+self.dbclient = self.testClient.getDbConnection()
+
+def tearDown(self):
+try:
+
+cmd =
updateHypervisorCapabilities.updateHypervisorCapabilitiesCmd()
+cmd.id = self.hostCapId
+
Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8689: Verify effect of changin...
How your logic works if there are no system vms on a host (ssvm, cpvm and
VR)? I mean if the cluster has more than one host and system vms were
deployed on another host in the cluster?
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:01 PM, pritisarap12 wrote:
> Github user pritisarap12 commented on a diff in the pull request:
>
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/638#discussion_r35955311
>
> --- Diff: test/integration/testpaths/testpath_hypervisor_limit.py ---
> @@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
> +# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
> +# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
> +# distributed with this work for additional information
> +# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
> +# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
> +# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
> +# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
> +#
> +# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> +#
> +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
> +# software distributed under the License is distributed on an
> +# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
> +# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
> +# specific language governing permissions and limitations
> +# under the License.
> +""" Test cases for Testing Max Hypervisor Limit
> +"""
> +from nose.plugins.attrib import attr
> +from marvin.cloudstackTestCase import cloudstackTestCase
> +from marvin.lib.utils import (cleanup_resources,
> + validateList)
> +from marvin.lib.base import (Account,
> + ServiceOffering,
> + VirtualMachine,
> + Host
> + )
> +from marvin.lib.common import (get_domain,
> + get_zone,
> + get_template,
> + list_virtual_machines
> + )
> +
> +
> +from marvin.cloudstackAPI import (updateHypervisorCapabilities,
> + listHypervisorCapabilities)
> +
> +from marvin.codes import PASS
> +
> +
> +class TestMaxHyperviosrLimit(cloudstackTestCase):
> +
> +@classmethod
> +def setUpClass(cls):
> +testClient = super(TestMaxHyperviosrLimit,
> cls).getClsTestClient()
> +cls.apiclient = testClient.getApiClient()
> +cls.testdata = testClient.getParsedTestDataConfig()
> +
> +cls.hypervisor = cls.testClient.getHypervisorInfo()
> +# Get Zone, Domain and templates
> +
> +cls.domain = get_domain(cls.apiclient)
> +cls.zone = get_zone(cls.apiclient,
> testClient.getZoneForTests())
> +
> +cls.template = get_template(
> +cls.apiclient,
> +cls.zone.id,
> +cls.testdata["ostype"])
> +
> +cls._cleanup = []
> +hostList = Host.list(cls.apiclient, zoneid=cls.zone.id,
> type="Routing")
> +cls.host = Host(hostList[0].__dict__)
> +Host.update(cls.apiclient, id=cls.host.id, hosttags="host1")
> +try:
> +cls.skiptest = False
> +if cls.hypervisor.lower() not in ['xenserver']:
> +cls.skiptest = True
> +return
> +
> +# Create an account
> +cls.account = Account.create(
> +cls.apiclient,
> +cls.testdata["account"],
> +domainid=cls.domain.id
> +)
> +
> +# Create user api client of the account
> +cls.userapiclient = testClient.getUserApiClient(
> +UserName=cls.account.name,
> +DomainName=cls.account.domain
> +)
> +# Create Service offering
> +cls.service_offering = ServiceOffering.create(
> +cls.apiclient,
> +cls.testdata["service_offering"],
> +hosttags="host1"
> +)
> +
> +cls._cleanup = [
> +cls.account,
> +cls.service_offering,
> +]
> +except Exception as e:
> +cls.tearDownClass()
> +raise e
> +return
> +
> +@classmethod
> +def tearDownClass(cls):
> +try:
> +cleanup_resources(cls.apiclient, cls._cleanup)
> +except Exception as e:
> +raise Exception("Warning: Exception during cleanup : %s"
> % e)
> +
> +def setUp(self):
> +self.cleanup = []
> +if self.skiptest:
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: test case automated for list template pag...
GitHub user shwetaag opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/646 test case automated for list template pagination verify list template gives same result with page size=500&page=(1,2) and page size=1000 when there are around 1000 templates . Moved one test case from component folder to maint folder as it requires MS restart You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/shwetaag/cloudstack customer_escalations Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/646.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #646 commit d1311b90ac0764bd137f7140572a71a7b33da10c Author: shweta agarwal Date: 2015-07-30T11:57:22Z test case automated for list template pagination --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
4.5.1 - SSVM Cert issues
Hi Folks, After updating to 4.5.1 and installing using the shapeblue SSVM templates: http://packages.shapeblue.com/systemvmtemplate/4.5/new/ We are hitting an issue very similar to the below when trying to copy templates between zones: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1475 We are using our own wildcard cert for this parameter: secstorage.ssl.cert.domain We weren't having any issues when using 4.3. Has anyone run into this? Cheers!
Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8696 This is a regression. Regards, Pavan
RE: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region
I am seeing the same issue on all the Automation BVT runs (across all Hypervisors - KVM, XS and VMWare)- will publish automation results summary on CWIKI and will post the same here. integration.smoke.test_regions.TestRegions.test_createRegion is where it is failing. -Original Message- From: Pavan Bandarupally [mailto:pavan.bandarupa...@citrix.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 2:43 PM To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8696 This is a regression. Regards, Pavan
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8689: Verify effect of changin...
Github user pritisarap12 commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/638#issuecomment-126636676 Updated the testcase for: -Count SSVM's on selected host -Count VR on the host -Count user VM's on the host -Then update the maxguestlimit for that host as(ssvm+vr+user_vm+1) -Added validateList for host list --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8689: Verify effect of changin...
Github user pritisarap12 commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/638#issuecomment-126637367 Testcase Result- Test hypervisor max limits effect ... === TestName: test_check_hypervisor_max_limit_effect | Status : SUCCESS === ok Ran 1 test in 159.787s OK --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
RE: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region
I feel this is a Blocker bug, failing across all Hypervisors, - not sure, the reason for being it downgraded to a Critical. Can someone else please try this out ? -Original Message- From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 3:49 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: RE: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region I am seeing the same issue on all the Automation BVT runs (across all Hypervisors - KVM, XS and VMWare)- will publish automation results summary on CWIKI and will post the same here. integration.smoke.test_regions.TestRegions.test_createRegion is where it is failing. -Original Message- From: Pavan Bandarupally [mailto:pavan.bandarupa...@citrix.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 2:43 PM To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8696 This is a regression. Regards, Pavan
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8640: Revert to AWS SDK 1.3.22
GitHub user wido opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/647 CLOUDSTACK-8640: Revert to AWS SDK 1.3.22 The newer SDKs API changed which causes our S3 Template Downloader to never complete. Although we should fix the Template Downloader we can revert to the old AWS SDK for now. The fix on the longer run will be rewriting the S3 Template Downloader. Two methods had to be disabled for now since the old SDK does not support them. They can be re-enabled when the Template Downloader has been fixed. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/wido/cloudstack CLOUDSTACK-8640 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/647.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #647 commit c32656a7ef13bc952899486026d5a4bf60ff6509 Author: Wido den Hollander Date: 2015-07-31T09:26:53Z CLOUDSTACK-8640: Revert to AWS SDK 1.3.22 The newer SDKs API changed which causes our S3 Template Downloader to never complete. Although we should fix the Template Downloader we can revert to the old AWS SDK for now. The fix on the longer run will be rewriting the S3 Template Downloader. Two methods had to be disabled for now since the old SDK does not support them. They can be re-enabled when the Template Downloader has been fixed. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
Re: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Raja Pullela wrote: > I feel this is a Blocker bug, failing across all Hypervisors, - not sure, the > reason for being it downgraded to a Critical. because it was not discussed on list before marking it as blocker. a blocker is blocking a release which is not a single person decision but needs to be discussed. -- Daan
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8689: Verify effect of changin...
Github user nitt10prashant commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/638#issuecomment-126656909 LGTM --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
RE: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region
Ok, thanks for the clarification Daan... Can someone, who is testing/trying out 4.6, test this functionality and post their findings, please? -Original Message- From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 4:27 PM To: dev Subject: Re: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Raja Pullela wrote: > I feel this is a Blocker bug, failing across all Hypervisors, - not sure, the > reason for being it downgraded to a Critical. because it was not discussed on list before marking it as blocker. a blocker is blocking a release which is not a single person decision but needs to be discussed. -- Daan
RE: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region
Dan, Since it's failing across all hypervisors and failure in creating a Region itself is a serious issue, I marked it as a blocker. Going forward will discuss and then bump up the priority. Can someone testing please comment their views on this. -Original Message- From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 4:42 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: RE: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region Ok, thanks for the clarification Daan... Can someone, who is testing/trying out 4.6, test this functionality and post their findings, please? -Original Message- From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 4:27 PM To: dev Subject: Re: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Raja Pullela wrote: > I feel this is a Blocker bug, failing across all Hypervisors, - not sure, the > reason for being it downgraded to a Critical. because it was not discussed on list before marking it as blocker. a blocker is blocking a release which is not a single person decision but needs to be discussed. -- Daan
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Only admin or owner of the template can c...
GitHub user manuiiit opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/648 Only admin or owner of the template can change its permissions using updateTemplatePermissions API You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/manuiiit/cloudstack pull-6 Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/648.patch To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch with (at least) the following in the commit message: This closes #648 commit 5cc036d2ed18b09b31493507a324490b1031e665 Author: Maneesha P Date: 2015-07-31T11:56:58Z Implemented condition that only admin or owner of the template can change its permissions using updateTemplatePermissions API --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8689: Verify effect of changin...
LGTM On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 4:42 PM, nitt10prashant wrote: > Github user nitt10prashant commented on the pull request: > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/638#issuecomment-126656909 > > LGTM > > > > --- > If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your > reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature > enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please > contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket > with INFRA. > --- >
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8677: Call-home functionality ...
Github user wido commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/625#issuecomment-126674015 I still don't know why travis fails. It fails on a storage part, but this commit doesn't touch anything from the storage. So I can't see why. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8677: Call-home functionality ...
Github user DaanHoogland commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/625#issuecomment-126677074 @wido not sure if these are related but please have a look at https://builds.apache.org/job/cloudstack-pull-analysis/83/org.apache.cloudstack$cloud-core/testReport/ it contains some unit test failure reports. I don't think you touched this directly either. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8677: Call-home functionality ...
Github user wido commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/625#issuecomment-126684715 @DaanHoogland I see, but I'm not even getting near that code. So it's unclear to me why this PR seems unstable. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8677: Call-home functionality ...
Github user DaanHoogland commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/625#issuecomment-126685792 let's find out. it might reveal some totally unrelated problem due to I never saw the serialization tests before AFAIR but will look at them now ;) --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8677: Call-home functionality ...
Github user DaanHoogland commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/625#discussion_r35971855 --- Diff: pom.xml --- @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ 2.6.9 1.7.2 18.0 +2.3.1 --- End diff -- cs.gson.version is defined a second time here. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
Automation Results on master wiki page
Hi, Here is a wiki page created based on the automation runs I have locally - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Automation+Results+-+Release+4.6.0 I will be adding/updating this wiki with the bugs created/found. Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions or comments, best, Raja
Re: Automation Results on master wiki page
Thanks Raja, Can you explain the relation of lines 1 and 11? and 2 and 12? ... On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Raja Pullela wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a wiki page created based on the automation runs I have locally - > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Automation+Results+-+Release+4.6.0 > > I will be adding/updating this wiki with the bugs created/found. > Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions or comments, > > best, > Raja > -- Daan
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8677: Call-home functionality ...
Github user DaanHoogland commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/625#issuecomment-126691096 I confirmed the problem in the failing test is in the newer gson version. Hope this works with the older gson. testing ... 1-2 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: CLOUDSTACK-8677: Call-home functionality ...
Github user wido commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/625#issuecomment-126695290 @DaanHoogland I need 2.3.1 for this patch to work. It builds with 2.3.1, but not with 1.7.2 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
Re: Automation Results on master wiki page
Daan, line 1,2 are related to running the tests on a simulator build - this is like Travis CI - tests. Since the tests are tagged we can run some of them on simulator. Also, 1 is Simulator with BasicZone BVT-tests in integration/smoke folder, 11 is Simulator BasicZone Regression- tests in integration/component folder... Adv - Advancedzone > On Jul 31, 2015, at 6:51 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > > Thanks Raja, > > Can you explain the relation of lines 1 and 11? and 2 and 12? ... > >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Raja Pullela >> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Here is a wiki page created based on the automation runs I have locally - >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Automation+Results+-+Release+4.6.0 >> >> I will be adding/updating this wiki with the bugs created/found. >> Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions or comments, >> >> best, >> Raja > > > > -- > Daan
Re: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region
Currently we are putting in effort to make sure no commit goes in directly without a PR. Based on that, I think it makes sense to treat any reported regression bug as a release blocker. If the bug is reported after release then it is a different issue and needs to be fixed in the subsequent release. Otherwise the quality process wouldn't make sense. On 31-Jul-2015, at 4:26 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Raja Pullela > wrote: >> I feel this is a Blocker bug, failing across all Hypervisors, - not sure, >> the reason for being it downgraded to a Critical. > > > because it was not discussed on list before marking it as blocker. a > blocker is blocking a release which is not a single person decision > but needs to be discussed. > > -- > Daan
Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Hi, I am requesting to see if we can revisit the process for creating "blocker" defects. I heard and do understand that someone can create a blocker defect and may not actively involve in closing it out and it doesn't help the product. I am not clear if we are doing this at and around RC time - however it doesn't matter. IMHO, feel that someone's involvement should not be taken as a reason for incorrectly categorizing a defect, meaning a blocker defect being created as a Critical and opening up a discussion to review. If no one supports the defect/issue, we will be putting out a release that has showstopper issues. Please share your thoughts and concerns for or against lifting this restriction! Raja
RE: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
+1 Categorizing an issue as blocker/showstopper should need some kind of moderation. One possibility, voting and/or require approval from certain # of PMCs. Alternately, this could also be left to the discretion of the RM. Regards, Somesh -Original Message- From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:15 AM To: CloudStack Dev Subject: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs Hi, I am requesting to see if we can revisit the process for creating "blocker" defects. I heard and do understand that someone can create a blocker defect and may not actively involve in closing it out and it doesn't help the product. I am not clear if we are doing this at and around RC time - however it doesn't matter. IMHO, feel that someone's involvement should not be taken as a reason for incorrectly categorizing a defect, meaning a blocker defect being created as a Critical and opening up a discussion to review. If no one supports the defect/issue, we will be putting out a release that has showstopper issues. Please share your thoughts and concerns for or against lifting this restriction! Raja
Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
-1 blocker means blocker and blocks a release. No one should be able to block a release on their own. We should treat the critical category as a staging area for those issues. On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Somesh Naidu wrote: > +1 > > Categorizing an issue as blocker/showstopper should need some kind of > moderation. One possibility, voting and/or require approval from certain # of > PMCs. Alternately, this could also be left to the discretion of the RM. > > Regards, > Somesh > > -Original Message- > From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:15 AM > To: CloudStack Dev > Subject: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs > > Hi, > > I am requesting to see if we can revisit the process for creating "blocker" > defects. I heard and do understand that someone can create a blocker defect > and may not actively involve in closing it out and it doesn't help the > product. I am not clear if we are doing this at and around RC time - however > it doesn't matter. > > IMHO, feel that someone's involvement should not be taken as a reason for > incorrectly categorizing a defect, meaning a blocker defect being created as > a Critical and opening up a discussion to review. If no one supports the > defect/issue, we will be putting out a release that has showstopper issues. > > Please share your thoughts and concerns for or against lifting this > restriction! > > Raja -- Daan
Re: Automation Results on master wiki page
Thanks Raja, I hadn' noticed the smoke/integration difference. Thanks for the data. Are you updating it automatically? On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Raja Pullela wrote: > Daan, line 1,2 are related to running the tests on a simulator build - this > is like Travis CI - tests. Since the tests are tagged we can run some of > them on simulator. > Also, 1 is Simulator with BasicZone BVT-tests in integration/smoke folder, > 11 is Simulator BasicZone Regression- tests in integration/component folder... > Adv - Advancedzone > >> On Jul 31, 2015, at 6:51 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: >> >> Thanks Raja, >> >> Can you explain the relation of lines 1 and 11? and 2 and 12? ... >> >>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Raja Pullela >>> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here is a wiki page created based on the automation runs I have locally - >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Automation+Results+-+Release+4.6.0 >>> >>> I will be adding/updating this wiki with the bugs created/found. >>> Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions or comments, >>> >>> best, >>> Raja >> >> >> >> -- >> Daan -- Daan
Re: Raised a blocker bug for failure in Add Region
Koushik, If an issue is serious it will be easy enough to convince the rest of us that this is so. On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Koushik Das wrote: > Currently we are putting in effort to make sure no commit goes in directly > without a PR. Based on that, I think it makes sense to treat any reported > regression bug as a release blocker. If the bug is reported after release > then it is a different issue and needs to be fixed in the subsequent release. > Otherwise the quality process wouldn't make sense. > > > > On 31-Jul-2015, at 4:26 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Raja Pullela >> wrote: >>> I feel this is a Blocker bug, failing across all Hypervisors, - not sure, >>> the reason for being it downgraded to a Critical. >> >> >> because it was not discussed on list before marking it as blocker. a >> blocker is blocking a release which is not a single person decision >> but needs to be discussed. >> >> -- >> Daan > -- Daan
RE: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Daan, While I have the same opinion as you that "No one should be able to block a release on their own". I also agree that the issue should be posted to the ML for discussion and it is the responsibility of the person who posted the defect to do so. I am more concerned with the process. My concern is specifically around this comment from Raja "If no one supports the defect/issue, we will be putting out a release that has showstopper issues." I mean for one, there should be a way for someone to flag an issue as blocker/showstopper and two, ensure that there is an explicit decision being made on the severity. To me it makes more sense to do this the other way round, that is, the person who found the issue raises the issue based on his understanding of the severity/impact. The person who is responsible for triaging (which in this case is the community) shall use their discretion to justify the severity and if it doesn't substantiate then downgrade/upgrade the same. Isn't this the general engineering practice? In addition, we'd have a guidelines on defect categorization for reference that can be looked up while raising a defect. Regards, Somesh -Original Message- From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 2:34 PM To: dev Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs -1 blocker means blocker and blocks a release. No one should be able to block a release on their own. We should treat the critical category as a staging area for those issues. On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Somesh Naidu wrote: > +1 > > Categorizing an issue as blocker/showstopper should need some kind of > moderation. One possibility, voting and/or require approval from certain # of > PMCs. Alternately, this could also be left to the discretion of the RM. > > Regards, > Somesh > > -Original Message- > From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:15 AM > To: CloudStack Dev > Subject: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs > > Hi, > > I am requesting to see if we can revisit the process for creating "blocker" > defects. I heard and do understand that someone can create a blocker defect > and may not actively involve in closing it out and it doesn't help the > product. I am not clear if we are doing this at and around RC time - however > it doesn't matter. > > IMHO, feel that someone's involvement should not be taken as a reason for > incorrectly categorizing a defect, meaning a blocker defect being created as > a Critical and opening up a discussion to review. If no one supports the > defect/issue, we will be putting out a release that has showstopper issues. > > Please share your thoughts and concerns for or against lifting this > restriction! > > Raja -- Daan
Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Somesh, please see my replies in line; On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Somesh Naidu wrote: > Daan, > > While I have the same opinion as you that "No one should be able to block a > release on their own". I also agree that the issue should be posted to the ML > for discussion and it is the responsibility of the person who posted the > defect to do so. > > I am more concerned with the process. My concern is specifically around this > comment from Raja "If no one supports the defect/issue, we will be putting > out a release that has showstopper issues." > > I mean for one, there should be a way for someone to flag an issue as > blocker/showstopper and two, ensure that there is an explicit decision being > made on the severity. ad one: you can send a mail saying "in my opinion the issue CLOUDSTACK-### should be considdered a blocker" ad two: we have such a process, we vote by lazy consensus on technical issues on dev@ > > To me it makes more sense to do this the other way round, that is, the person > who found the issue raises the issue based on his understanding of the > severity/impact. The person who is responsible for triaging (which in this > case is the community) shall use their discretion to justify the severity and > if it doesn't substantiate then downgrade/upgrade the same. this leaves teh community open to being taken hostage by a single person or a small group that keeps bombarding us with blockers. I am being paranoia by past experience. > > Isn't this the general engineering practice? Not to my knowledge, not in this case. Of course we can have a discussion about the semantics of 'blocker'. And then a user may be blocked but that is not this case: our release should be blocked is what blocker means to us. For all practical purposes we don't have a severity 'blocks user'. > > In addition, we'd have a guidelines on defect categorization for reference > that can be looked up while raising a defect. that is a very good idea. > > Regards, > Somesh > > > -Original Message- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 2:34 PM > To: dev > Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs > > -1 blocker means blocker and blocks a release. No one should be able > to block a release on their own. We should treat the critical category > as a staging area for those issues. > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Somesh Naidu wrote: >> +1 >> >> Categorizing an issue as blocker/showstopper should need some kind of >> moderation. One possibility, voting and/or require approval from certain # >> of PMCs. Alternately, this could also be left to the discretion of the RM. >> >> Regards, >> Somesh >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:15 AM >> To: CloudStack Dev >> Subject: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs >> >> Hi, >> >> I am requesting to see if we can revisit the process for creating "blocker" >> defects. I heard and do understand that someone can create a blocker defect >> and may not actively involve in closing it out and it doesn't help the >> product. I am not clear if we are doing this at and around RC time - >> however it doesn't matter. >> >> IMHO, feel that someone's involvement should not be taken as a reason for >> incorrectly categorizing a defect, meaning a blocker defect being created as >> a Critical and opening up a discussion to review. If no one supports the >> defect/issue, we will be putting out a release that has showstopper issues. >> >> Please share your thoughts and concerns for or against lifting this >> restriction! >> >> Raja > > > > -- > Daan -- Daan
RE: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Daan, I was using the term "blocker" in context of a release and hence suggesting involvement of RM in getting a closure. In terms of defect categorization, I found this both relevant and helpful - https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Showstopper. Regards, Somesh -Original Message- From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:52 PM To: dev Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs Somesh, please see my replies in line; On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Somesh Naidu wrote: > Daan, > > While I have the same opinion as you that "No one should be able to block a > release on their own". I also agree that the issue should be posted to the ML > for discussion and it is the responsibility of the person who posted the > defect to do so. > > I am more concerned with the process. My concern is specifically around this > comment from Raja "If no one supports the defect/issue, we will be putting > out a release that has showstopper issues." > > I mean for one, there should be a way for someone to flag an issue as > blocker/showstopper and two, ensure that there is an explicit decision being > made on the severity. ad one: you can send a mail saying "in my opinion the issue CLOUDSTACK-### should be considdered a blocker" ad two: we have such a process, we vote by lazy consensus on technical issues on dev@ > > To me it makes more sense to do this the other way round, that is, the person > who found the issue raises the issue based on his understanding of the > severity/impact. The person who is responsible for triaging (which in this > case is the community) shall use their discretion to justify the severity and > if it doesn't substantiate then downgrade/upgrade the same. this leaves teh community open to being taken hostage by a single person or a small group that keeps bombarding us with blockers. I am being paranoia by past experience. > > Isn't this the general engineering practice? Not to my knowledge, not in this case. Of course we can have a discussion about the semantics of 'blocker'. And then a user may be blocked but that is not this case: our release should be blocked is what blocker means to us. For all practical purposes we don't have a severity 'blocks user'. > > In addition, we'd have a guidelines on defect categorization for reference > that can be looked up while raising a defect. that is a very good idea. > > Regards, > Somesh > > > -Original Message- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 2:34 PM > To: dev > Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs > > -1 blocker means blocker and blocks a release. No one should be able > to block a release on their own. We should treat the critical category > as a staging area for those issues. > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Somesh Naidu wrote: >> +1 >> >> Categorizing an issue as blocker/showstopper should need some kind of >> moderation. One possibility, voting and/or require approval from certain # >> of PMCs. Alternately, this could also be left to the discretion of the RM. >> >> Regards, >> Somesh >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:15 AM >> To: CloudStack Dev >> Subject: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs >> >> Hi, >> >> I am requesting to see if we can revisit the process for creating "blocker" >> defects. I heard and do understand that someone can create a blocker defect >> and may not actively involve in closing it out and it doesn't help the >> product. I am not clear if we are doing this at and around RC time - >> however it doesn't matter. >> >> IMHO, feel that someone's involvement should not be taken as a reason for >> incorrectly categorizing a defect, meaning a blocker defect being created as >> a Critical and opening up a discussion to review. If no one supports the >> defect/issue, we will be putting out a release that has showstopper issues. >> >> Please share your thoughts and concerns for or against lifting this >> restriction! >> >> Raja > > > > -- > Daan -- Daan
Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
Irrespective of what ever defect an user creates, people involved can always comment on a bug a downgrade the defect (like Somesh said, RM can do this). This is a standard process we have used earlier. My 2 years with this project, I don't remember there was a time when few folks have created a bunch of blockers with a malicious intent of blocking a release? We should approach to this as people create defects with a "good" intent. IMHO, creating a process to NOT to see showstopper issues (making a discussion) for a product is putting on blinders for quality! Example being, to few issues that were raised this week, we are still waiting for people chime in with their feedback. If no one gets back, we will be putting out a product that has a bunch of showstopper issues. I hope everyone has seen the automation wiki details that was posted yesterday - which should be concern for putting out a quality product! > On Aug 1, 2015, at 3:22 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > > Somesh, please see my replies in line; > >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Somesh Naidu >> wrote: >> Daan, >> >> While I have the same opinion as you that "No one should be able to block a >> release on their own". I also agree that the issue should be posted to the >> ML for discussion and it is the responsibility of the person who posted the >> defect to do so. >> >> I am more concerned with the process. My concern is specifically around this >> comment from Raja "If no one supports the defect/issue, we will be putting >> out a release that has showstopper issues." >> >> I mean for one, there should be a way for someone to flag an issue as >> blocker/showstopper and two, ensure that there is an explicit decision being >> made on the severity. > > ad one: you can send a mail saying "in my opinion the issue > CLOUDSTACK-### should be considdered a blocker" > ad two: we have such a process, we vote by lazy consensus on technical > issues on dev@ > >> >> To me it makes more sense to do this the other way round, that is, the >> person who found the issue raises the issue based on his understanding of >> the severity/impact. The person who is responsible for triaging (which in >> this case is the community) shall use their discretion to justify the >> severity and if it doesn't substantiate then downgrade/upgrade the same. > > this leaves teh community open to being taken hostage by a single > person or a small group that keeps bombarding us with blockers. I am > being paranoia by past experience. > >> >> Isn't this the general engineering practice? > > Not to my knowledge, not in this case. Of course we can have a > discussion about the semantics of 'blocker'. And then a user may be > blocked but that is not this case: our release should be blocked is > what blocker means to us. For all practical purposes we don't have a > severity 'blocks user'. > >> >> In addition, we'd have a guidelines on defect categorization for reference >> that can be looked up while raising a defect. > > that is a very good idea. > >> >> Regards, >> Somesh >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 2:34 PM >> To: dev >> Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs >> >> -1 blocker means blocker and blocks a release. No one should be able >> to block a release on their own. We should treat the critical category >> as a staging area for those issues. >> >>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Somesh Naidu >>> wrote: >>> +1 >>> >>> Categorizing an issue as blocker/showstopper should need some kind of >>> moderation. One possibility, voting and/or require approval from certain # >>> of PMCs. Alternately, this could also be left to the discretion of the RM. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Somesh >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] >>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:15 AM >>> To: CloudStack Dev >>> Subject: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am requesting to see if we can revisit the process for creating "blocker" >>> defects. I heard and do understand that someone can create a blocker >>> defect and may not actively involve in closing it out and it doesn't help >>> the product. I am not clear if we are doing this at and around RC time - >>> however it doesn't matter. >>> >>> IMHO, feel that someone's involvement should not be taken as a reason for >>> incorrectly categorizing a defect, meaning a blocker defect being created >>> as a Critical and opening up a discussion to review. If no one supports >>> the defect/issue, we will be putting out a release that has showstopper >>> issues. >>> >>> Please share your thoughts and concerns for or against lifting this >>> restriction! >>> >>> Raja >> >> >> >> -- >> Daan > > > > -- > Daan
