Hi,
I agree with Jordan.
We don't have to use the tool as part of the gate. It's target audience is
people and not CI systems. More specifically - new users.
However, we could add a gate (or a few) for the tool that makes sure a
proper conf file is generated. It doesn't have to run the tests, just
;
> "context": {
>
"network": {"networks_per_tenant": 1},
> "users": {
>
> "tenants": 3,
>
> "users_per_tenant": 2
>
&g
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Behzad Dastur
wrote:
> I have a contrail/OpenStack cloud deployed on which I am trying to run
> some rally benchmarks. But I am having trouble getting the rally boot tests
> to run. It throws the "Error Forbidden: It is not allowed to create an
> interface on exte
Thank you for moving it to a more reasonable time for me.
- Original Message -
From: "Boris Pavlovic"
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
, "carlos torres"
, yfr...@redhat.com, "yingjun li"
, "Aleksandr Maretskiy" ,
"Andrey Kurilin" , "Mikhail Dubov" ,
+1
- Original Message -
From: "Boris Pavlovic"
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 6:09:43 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Rally] Improve review process
Roman,
Well done! This really simplifies life!
Best regards,
Boris
- Original Message -
> From: "Aleksandr Maretskiy"
> To: "Andrey Kurilin"
> Cc: "Boris Pavlovic" , "OpenStack Development Mailing
> List" , yfr...@redhat.com, "yingjun li"
> , "Mikhail Dubov" , "Oleg
> Anufriev" , "Roman Vasilets"
> , "Sergey Skripnick"
> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015
Hi,
I'd rather not subclass dict directly.
for various reasons adding extra attributes to normal python dict seems prone
to errors since people will be expecting regular dicts, and on the other hand
if we want to expand it in the future we might run into problems playing with
dict methods (such
I would like to add a question to John's list
- Original Message -
> From: "John Schwarz"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:22:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS] LBaaS v2 API syntax
> addit
- Original Message -
> From: "David Kranz"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List"
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:54:22 PM
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [qa] The role of an abstract client in tempest
>
> Even as a core contributor for several years, it has never been clear
> what th
- Original Message -
> From: "Fei Long Wang"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Cc: br...@catalyst.net.nz
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8:29:03 AM
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [QA] Questions about test policy for scenario test
> Greetings,
> We're l
- Original Message -
> From: "Sean Dague"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 3:40:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] Tempest Release Naming
>
> On 05/22/2014 08:33 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2014-05-22 18:33:3
Hi,
For everyone's convenience, I've added to the pad short descriptions of Network
Scenarios that are currently in tree (or under review) that I am familiar with.
Feel free to add/edit
Regards
Yair
- Original Message -
> From: "Miguel Lavalle"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing Li
Hi Julien
I've tried to backport it in the past, and it was rejected, as it needs quite a
lot of work.
If you are able to convince everyone otherwise, I will gladly help you with the
code.
However, I think the better solution would be to somehow create a gate that
runs the scenarios in the Mas
- Original Message -
> From: "Alexei Kornienko"
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:43:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [QA] The future of nosetests with
> Tempest
> Hi,
> Let me express my concerns on this topic:
> > With some recent chan
Hi,
What's the status of this BP? -
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/router-port-forwarding
will it be ready for I3?
The BP is approved but the patch is abandoned
Regards
Yair
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.o
Hi,
What's the status of this BP? -
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/router-port-forwarding
will it be ready for I3?
The BP is approved but the patch is abandoned
Regards
Yair
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.o
lvatore
On 20 January 2014 09:23, Jay Pipes < jaypi...@gmail.com > wrote:
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 07:17 -0500, Yair Fried wrote:
> OK,
> but considering my pending patch (#3 and #4)
> what about:
>
> #1 -> #2
> #1 -> #3
> #1 -> #4
>
> ins
ps to smaller test cases
>
> On 01/19/2014 02:06 AM, Yair Fried wrote:
> > MT:"Is your issue here that it's just called basic ops and you
> > don't think that's
> > reflective of what is being tested in that file anymore"
> >
> > N
"
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 6:17:55 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][Neutron][Tempest][Network] Break down
NetworkBasicOps to smaller test cases
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:20:22AM -0500, Yair Fried wrote:
> Hi Guys
> As Maru pointed out - NetworkBasicOps scenario has grown out of pr
Hi Guys
As Maru pointed out - NetworkBasicOps scenario has grown out of proportion and
is no longer "basic" ops.
So, I started breaking it down to smaller test cases that can fail
independently.
Those test cases share the same setup and tear-down code:
1. create network resources (and verify th
Hi,
I'm trying to push a firewall api test [1] and I see it cannot run on the
current gate.
I was FWaaS is disabled since it broke the gate.
Does anyone knows if this is still an issue?
If so - how do we overcome this?
I would like to do some work on this service (scenarios) and don't want to
was
This might be completely off, in "isolated creds", a private network is created
for each tenant, while the test already creates its own private tenant network,
thereby changing the behavior from how it was intended to, and how it is in
"simple" mode. Could this be related?
I have this patch addr
ow have CrossTenant test checking L3
routing
Yair
----- Original Message -
From: "Yair Fried"
To: openstack-in...@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 5:57:44 PM
Subject: [OpenStack-Infra] Fwd: [openstack-dev]
[Openstack][qa][Tempest][Network] [Infra]Tes
t; Hi,
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Yair Fried
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Masayuki Igawa"
> >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> >>
> &g
Yair
- Original Message -
From: "Yair Fried"
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 11:20:40 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Tempest][qa] Adding tags to commit messages
- Original Message -
>
Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Yair Fried
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Suggestion: Please consider tagging your Tempest commit messages
> > the same way you do your mails in the mailing list
> >
> > Explanation: Since tempest is a single project testin
Hi,
Suggestion: Please consider tagging your Tempest commit messages the same way
you do your mails in the mailing list
Explanation: Since tempest is a single project testing multiple Openstack
project we have a very diverse collection of patches as well as reviewers.
Tagging our commit message
- Original Message -
> From: "Brent Eagles"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 10:48:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][qa] test_network_basic_ops and the
> "FloatingIPChecker" control point
>
> Salvato
hange this for me (infra?)?
I would really like your input in this matter, as I am in the final stretch of
this patch and cannot move any farther by myself
Regards
Yair Fried
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Stanley"
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Thursday, N
usage questions)"
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 12:42:56 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][qa] test_network_basic_ops and the
"FloatingIPChecker" control point
On 12/19/2013 03:31 AM, Yair Fried wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> I run into this issue trying to incorporate this t
Hi Guys,
I run into this issue trying to incorporate this test into
cross_tenant_connectivity scenario:
launching 2 VMs in different tenants
What I saw, is that in the gate it fails half the time (the original test
passes without issues) and ONLY on the 2nd VM (the first FLIP propagates fine).
Hi
In tempest.conf, Is the parameter "tenant_networks_reachable" affected by
anything other than neutron using ip name-spaces (which is the default setting)
or not, and if not using it - if the tempest host is the same as the neutron
server host?
Regards
nnectivity
On 2013-11-20 14:07:49 -0800 (-0800), Sean Dague wrote:
> On 11/18/2013 02:41 AM, Yair Fried wrote:
> [...]
> > 2. add fields in tempest.conf for
> > * external connectivity = False/True
> > * external ip to test against (ie 8.8.8.8)
>
> +1 for #2. In
ns is also configured
2. activly configure dns on subnet creation (based on tempest.conf
Comments/suggestions will be much appriciated
Regards
Yair Fried
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-b
34 matches
Mail list logo
