cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Koushik Das <koushik....@citrix.com>
Subject Re: Blameless post mortem
Date Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:49:50 GMT
inline

On 28-Sep-2015, at 9:15 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let me try to reply,
> 
>> On Sep 28, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Koushik Das <koushik.das@citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I had asked for the documentation on persistent VR (PR # 118) changes in the context
of another discussion and this is what I got at that time.
>> http://dev.cloudstack.apache.narkive.com/MH47etbS/discuss-out-of-band-vr-migration-should-we-reboot-vr-or-not#post39

>> 
> 
> That was back in June. So one has to think that you were happy with the answers you got,
otherwise you had to keep pushing for documentation and make noise about it at that time.

In the context of that discussion yes, but not in terms of overall feature. Unfortunately
bugs weren't reported at that time otherwise would have made enough noise :).


>> Right now as I see from the discussion no one understands the changes fully and there
is no documentation available explaining the design/code flow etc.
> 
> Just like anyone coming to CloudStack from scratch, now and 3 years ago. There is limited
or terrible documentation about how the system works, people pick it up on their own by looking
at the code. This is how it’s done in a lot of project, and a lot of software. 
> 
> This is not specific to this issue, if you really want my opinion, our documentation
has always sucked, our api documentation is pathetic and our wiki is useless.

Are you saying since we were pathetic in terms of documentation 3 years back, we still stick
to the same? If we put same logic to the code base then why care about PRs, code reviews at
all. I feel we as a community need to improve the documentation, at least start with the new
changes. And if the changes impact the core pieces of the system it becomes even more important.
If you look at PR 118 you will realise that the person who submitted the PR is calming that
he is not fully aware of the changes. What do you expect me to make out of that?

> 
>> Even if someone volunteers to fix an issue, the person may not be sure if something
else will break given the nature of code and current status of tests. The existing VR scripts
(may not be as appealing as the new .py scripts :) ) were stabilised over multiple releases
and I am sure there must have been lot of manual testing done as well. To do the same on the
new changes will at least take similar amount of testing.
>> 
>> Given that 4.6 release is nearing, one option would be to fix the pending ones and
release with a disclaimer that VR related functionality may have regressed over last release
(at this point no one knows what all other potential issues may crop up).
> 
> Nope…we don’t. But it is a very general statement, we don’t know what can come
up due to this change or any other change…mostly because we have always had bad tests coverage,
unit or integration or what have you, and that 3 years in we still don’t have a dedicated
CI.
> 
>> Or the other options would be to indefinitely postpone 4.6, fix the documentation,
fix issues and once there is consensus on the stability aspect go ahead with the release.
> 
> This in my view is traditional software engineering release concept. We don’t need
this in an open source project like this. We can release, it takes 5 minutes to cut a release.
We should release and fix, release and fix, release and fix.
> 
> The all idea about what we are doing is that we can release everytime we find and fix
a bug. There is no benefit about postponing things.
> 

Theoretically we can cut any number of releases at any frequency. But since concerns have
been raised on the quality aspect I feel it needs to be addressed appropriately. Let users
take an informed decision on whether to use a particular release or not. I am not saying that
postponing is the only option.

> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Koushik
>> 
>> 
>> On 28-Sep-2015, at 6:20 PM, Wilder Rodrigues <WRodrigues@schubergphilis.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree with the docs stuff, that I said 5 emails ago.
>>> 
>>> Once things are fixed, I will take the time to understand the code as a whole
and write the documentation: we will need ir for release purposes anyway.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Wilder
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 14:47, Bharat Kumar <bharat.kumar@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Wilder,
>>>> 
>>>> I am not talking about just the vpc networks. There are many other ares getting
effected because of this, some of them are vpn(not implemented) , rvr in isolated networks
etc. 
>>>> All i am saying is the design doc will help us understand the complete impact
of the changes and deal with them accordingly.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bharat.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 28-Sep-2015, at 6:02 pm, Wilder Rodrigues <WRodrigues@schubergphilis.com>
wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Only few tests…. 51 tests against a real environment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> At that time Nux also tested it and we tried to get Paul Angus, Geoff
and Rohit from Shape Blue to test it as well. Nux found a couple of issues that were reported
and fixed (see email below).
>>>>> 
>>>>> When I came back from holidays, 4 weeks ago, a PR containing 360 files
changed and almost 4000 lines, which was not even compiling, was merged onto Master. We have
less than a handful of people executing tests against PRs - so few that I could even name
who tests and who doesn’t. But hey, that’s a blames email. I’m not trying to justify
anything, but that handful of people, who actually care about ACS, are getting quite fedup
with this whole discussion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Wilder
>>>>> 
>>>>> ===========================================================
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 20 Feb 2015, at 10:03, Nux! <nux@li.nux.ro<mailto:nux@li.nux.ro>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, it looks like we were right to test it, found some problems.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1 - the passwords for instances are not served properly, `wget --header
"DomU_Request: send_my_password" $router:8080` returns blank response. I am not sure why this
happens, though I tried to look around the router.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2 - in addition to the above, in a redundant VPC the SNAT does not work.
From an instance I can ping the router(s), but not any further than that. SNAT works fine
in a normal/non-vpc network.
>>>>> I'll try to look more into it later today.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Have a nice day :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Lucian
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nux!
>>>>> www.nux.ro<http://www.nux.ro>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 14:13, Bharat Kumar <bharat.kumar@citrix.com<mailto:bharat.kumar@citrix.com>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Sebastien,
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are confused, we are talking about  persistent VR config changes.
below is the pr related to it.
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/118
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you look at it you will notice that there are more than 250 commits
and only a few tests that were run.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Bharat.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 28-Sep-2015, at 5:24 pm, Bharat Kumar <bharat.kumar@citrix.com<mailto:bharat.kumar@citrix.com><mailto:bharat.kumar@citrix.com>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Remi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whatever  ever we think  we have discovered are all well known best practices
while developing code in community.
>>>>> I agree that tests need to be run on a new PR,  but i wonder why was
this ignored when merging the VR refactor code. Perhaps we will uncover some more issues if
we investigate this. I believe
>>>>> one of the reasons for this is the complexity and incomplete nature of
the vr refactor change and failing to identify the areas which got effected. If we had a good
documentation i think we cloud have understood the areas that were getting
>>>>> impacted early on, areas like the vpn ,  iptables, isolated networks
rvr   etc  and run the relevant tests. The documentation will also help us focus on these
areas while reviewing  and fixing subsequent issues. Currently no one knows the areas that
got effected
>>>>> due to the vr refactor change, we are seeing issues all over the code.
 I think this is a bigger problem than what we have discussed so far.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think presently we should stop fixing all the vr refactoring  bugs
until we come up with a  proper document describing the VR refactoring  changes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am not suggesting that we should revert the vr refactor code, I am
willing to work on this and fix the issues,  I am only asking if we can get some documentation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Bharat.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 28-Sep-2015, at 4:59 pm, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com<mailto:runseb@gmail.com><mailto:runseb@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 28, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Remi Bergsma <RBergsma@schubergphilis.com<mailto:RBergsma@schubergphilis.com><mailto:RBergsma@schubergphilis.com>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Bharat,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is only one way to prove a feature works: with tests. That’s
why I say actually _running_ the tests we have today on any new PR, is the most important
thing. Having no documentation is a problem, I agree, but it is not more important IMHO. If
we had the documentation, we still would have issues if nobody runs the tests and verifies
pull requests. Documentation that is perfect does not automatically lead to perfect implementation.
So we need tests to verify.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we don’t agree that is also fine. We need to do both anyway and
I think we do agree on that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also we need to move forward. We should have a live chat once 4.6 is
out to discuss all issues/problems and iron out the process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But reverting the VR refactor is not going to happen. There was ample
discussions on the PR when it was submitted, there was time to review and raise concerns at
that time. It went through quite a few reviews, tests etc…Maybe the documentation is not
good, but the time to raise this concern I am afraid was six months ago. We can learn from
it, but we are not going to revert it, this would not go cleanly as David mentioned.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So let’s get back to blockers for 4.6, are there still VR related issues
with master ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Remi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 28/09/15 12:15, "Bharat Kumar" <bharat.kumar@citrix.com<mailto:bharat.kumar@citrix.com><mailto:bharat.kumar@citrix.com>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Remi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> i do not agree with “There is no bigger problem”  part of your reply.
so I had to repeat myself to make it more clear, Not because i am not aware of what this thread
is supposed to do.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Bharat.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 28-Sep-2015, at 2:51 pm, Remi Bergsma <RBergsma@schubergphilis.com<mailto:RBergsma@schubergphilis.com><mailto:RBergsma@schubergphilis.com>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Bharat,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I understand your frustrations but we already agreed on this so no need
to repeat. This thread is supposed to list some improvements and learn from it. Your point
has been taken so let’s move on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We need documentation first, then do a change after which all tests should
pass. Even better is we write (missing) tests before changing stuff so you know they pass
before and after the fact.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When doing reviews, feel free to ask for design documentation if you
feel it is needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards, Remi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 28/09/15 11:02, "Bharat Kumar" <bharat.kumar@citrix.com<mailto:bharat.kumar@citrix.com><mailto:bharat.kumar@citrix.com>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Remi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I never intended to say that we should not run tests, but even before
tests we should have proper documentation. My concern was if a major change is being introduced
it should be properly documented. All the issues which we are trying to fix are majorly due
to VR refactor. If there was a proper documentation for this we could
>>>>> have fixed this in a better way.  Even to add tests we need to understand
how a particular thing works and what data dose it expect. I think while fixing the python
based code changes this is where most of the people are facing issues. A proper documentation
will help in understanding these in a better way.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Bharat.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 28-Sep-2015, at 1:57 pm, Remi Bergsma <RBergsma@schubergphilis.com<mailto:RBergsma@schubergphilis.com><mailto:RBergsma@schubergphilis.com>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Bharat,
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is no bigger problem. We should always run the tests and if we
find a case that isn’t currently covered by the tests we should simply add tests for it.
There’s no way we’ll get a stable master without them. The fact that they may not cover
everything, is no reason to not rely on them. If a feature is not important enough to write
a test for, then the feature is probably not important anyway. And if it is, then add a test
:-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I do agree on the design documentation requirement for any (major?) change.
I found some design documentations on the subject you mention, but it should have been more
detailed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Remi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 28/09/15 09:58, "Bharat Kumar" <bharat.kumar@citrix.com<mailto:bharat.kumar@citrix.com><mailto:bharat.kumar@citrix.com>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Remi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for the Blame less postmortem.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think there is a bigger problem here than just the review process and
running tests. Even if we run the tests we cannot be sure that every thing will work as intended.
The tests will only give some level of confidence. The tests may not cover all the use cases.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think the problem here is that the way major changes to the code base
are dealt with. For example,  VR refactoring was done without discussing the design implications
and the amount of changes it would bring in. I could not find any design document. The vr
refactor changed a lot of code and the way VR used to work and in my opinion it was incomplete-vpn,
isolated networks, basic networks, iptable rules and rvr in isolated case etc were not implemented.
Most of us are still in the process of understanding this. Even before reaching this state
we had to spend a lot of time fixing issues mentioned in the thread [Blocker/Critical] VR
related Issues.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When a change of this magnitude is being made, we should call out all
the changes and document them properly. This will help people to create better fixes. Currently
when we attempt to fix the isolated vr case it is effecting the vpc and vice versa. for example
pr 738 fixed it for vpc networks but broke it for isolated case. I believe it is not too late
to at least start documenting the changes now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Bharat.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 28-Sep-2015, at 10:52 am, Sanjeev N <sanjeev@apache.org<mailto:sanjeev@apache.org><mailto:sanjeev@apache.org>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have a concern here. Some of us are actively involved in reviewing
the
>>>>> PRs related to marvin tests(Enhancing existing tests/Adding new tests).
If
>>>>> we have to test a PR it requires an environment to be created with actual
>>>>> resources and this is going to take lot of time. Some of the tests can
run
>>>>> on simulator but most of the tests require real hardware to test. PR
>>>>> submitter is already testing and submitting the test results along with
the
>>>>> PR. So is it require to test these PRs by reviewers?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 1:49 PM, sebgoa <runseb@gmail.com<mailto:runseb@gmail.com><mailto:runseb@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Remi, thanks for the detailed post-mortem, it's a good read and great
>>>>> learning.
>>>>> I hope everyone reads it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The one thing to emphasize is that we now have a very visible way to
get
>>>>> code into master, we have folks investing time to provide review (great),
>>>>> we need the submitters to make due diligence and answer all comments
in the
>>>>> reviews.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In another project i work on, nothing can be added to the code without
>>>>> unit tests. I think we could go down the route of asking for new
>>>>> integration tests and unit tests for anything. If not, the PR does not
get
>>>>> merged. But let's digest your post-mortem and we can discuss after 4.6.0.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I see that you reverted one commit that was not made by you, that's great.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let's focus on the blockers now, everything else can wait.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The big bonus of doing what we are doing is that once 4.6.0 is out, we
can
>>>>> merge PRs again (assuming they are properly rebased and tested) and we
can
>>>>> release 4.6.1 really quickly after.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 25, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Remi Bergsma <RBergsma@schubergphilis.com<mailto:RBergsma@schubergphilis.com><mailto:RBergsma@schubergphilis.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> This mail is intended to be blameless. We need to learn something from
>>>>> it. That's why I left out who exactly did what because it’s not relevant.
>>>>> There are multiple examples but it's about the why. Let's learn from
this
>>>>> without blaming anyone.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We know we need automated testing. We have integration tests, but we
are
>>>>> unable to run all of them on any Pull Request we receive. If we would
have
>>>>> that in place, it'd be much easier to spot errors, regression and so
on.
>>>>> It'd also be more rewarding to write more tests.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unfortunately we're not there yet. So, we need to do something else
>>>>> instead until we get there. If we do nothing, we know we have many issues
>>>>> because a master that breaks on a regular basis is the most frustrating
>>>>> things. We said we'd use Pull Requests with at least two humans to review
>>>>> and give their OK for a Pull Request. In the form of LGTM: Looks Good
To
>>>>> Me. Ok, so the LGTMs are there because we have no automated testing.
Keep
>>>>> that in mind. You are supposed to replace automated testing until it's
>>>>> there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since we do this, master got a lot more stable. But every now and then
>>>>> we still have issues. Let's look at how we do manual reviews. Again,
this
>>>>> is not to blame anyone. It's to open our eyes and make us realise what
>>>>> we're doing and what results we get out of that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Example Pull Request #784:
>>>>> Title: CLOUDSTACK-8799 fixed the default routes
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's nice, it has a Jira id and a short description (as it should be).
>>>>> 
>>>>> The first person comes along and makes a comment:
>>>>> "There was also an issue with VPC VRs" ... "Have you seen this issue?
>>>>> Does your change affects the VPC VR (single/redundant)?"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually a good question. Unfortunaly there comes no answer. After a
>>>>> reminder, it was promised to do tests against VPC networks. Great!
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Jenkins builds both succeed and also Travis is green. But how much
>>>>> value does this have? They have the impression to do automated testing,
and
>>>>> although you could argue they do, it's far from complete. If it breaks,
you
>>>>> know you have an issue. But it doesn’t work the other way around.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Back to our example PR. In the mean time, another commit gets pushed
to
>>>>> it: "CLOUDSTACK-8799 fixed for vpc networks." But if you look at the
Jira
>>>>> issue, you see it is about redundant virtual routers. The non-VPC ones.
So
>>>>> this is vague at best. But a reviewer gives a LGTM because the person
could
>>>>> create a VPC. That doesn't have anything to do with the problem being
fixed
>>>>> in this PR nor with the comments made earlier. But, at least the person
>>>>> said what he did and we should all do that. What nobody knew back then,
was
>>>>> that this broke the default route on VPCs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then something strange happens: the two commits from the PR end up on
>>>>> master as direct commits. With just one LGTM and no verification from
the
>>>>> person commenting about the linked issue. This happened on Friday September
>>>>> 11th.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That day 21 commits came in, from 7 Pull Request and unfortunately also
>>>>> from some direct commits. We noticed the direct commits and notified
the
>>>>> list (http://cloudstack.markmail.org/message/srmszloyipkxml36). As a
lot
>>>>> came in at the same time, it was decided not to revert them. Looking
back,
>>>>> we should have done it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From this point on, VPCs were broken as they wouldn't get a default
>>>>> route. So, no public internet access from VMs in VPC tiers, no VPNs
>>>>> working, etc. This was mentioned to the list on Thursday September 15th,
>>>>> after some chats and debugging going on over the weekend (
>>>>> http://cloudstack.markmail.org/message/73ulpu4p75ex24tc)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here we are, master is broken functionality wise and new Pull Requests
>>>>> come in to fix blockers. But we cannot ever test their proper working,
>>>>> because VPCs are broken in master and so also in the PRs branched off
of
>>>>> it. With or without change in the PR.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It starts to escalate as the days go by.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’ll leave out the bit on how this frustrated people. Although it’s
good
>>>>> to know we do not want to be in this situation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Eventually Wilder and I spent an evening and a day working on a branch
>>>>> where we loaded 7 PRs on top of each other (all VR related) only to find
>>>>> the VPC is still broken. It allowed us to zoom in and find the default
>>>>> route was missing again. We said it worked 3 weeks before, because the
same
>>>>> tests that succeeded then, now were broken. We had already fixed this
in PR
>>>>> #738 on August 25 so were sure about it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> After some digging we could trace it back to Pull Request #784. Imagine
>>>>> the feeling seeing your own comment there mentioning the previous issue
on
>>>>> the default gateways. Fair to say our human review process clearly failed
>>>>> here. Many many hours were spent on this problem over the past two weeks.
>>>>> Could we have prevented this from happening? I think so, yes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> This example clearly shows why:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - we should use Pull Requests
>>>>> It made the change visible: Great!
>>>>> 
>>>>> - we do reviews and ask for feedback
>>>>> We got feedback and questions: Also great!
>>>>> 
>>>>> - we should always respond to feedback and verify it is resolved, before
>>>>> merging
>>>>> We need to improve here. Even with two reviewers that say LGTM, we
>>>>> should still address any feedback before merging.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - we should have two humans doing a review
>>>>> We need to improve here as well. Not one reviewer, we need two. Really.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - we need to document why we say LGTM.
>>>>> Another improvement. It’s nice to say LGTM, but a review of only 4
>>>>> characters and nothing more is useless. We need to know what was tested
and
>>>>> how. Test results, screen shots or anything that shows what's been
>>>>> verified. If you only reviewed the code, also fine but at least say that.
>>>>> Then the next reviewer should do another type of review to get the comlete
>>>>> picture. Remember you're replacing automated testing!
>>>>> 
>>>>> - we should always merge Pull Requests
>>>>> We made it easy, merging is the de facto standard, and it has even more
>>>>> benefits. You can trace commits back to their Pull Request (and find
all
>>>>> comments and discussion there: saves time, trust me). It also allows
for
>>>>> easier reverting of a Pull Request. We’ll see even more benefits once
4.7
>>>>> is there. Although the intentions to merge the Pull Request were there,
it
>>>>> still didn't happen. We should always check before we push. As a committer
>>>>> we just need to be sure.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - we need automated testing!
>>>>> The sooner the better. It’s all about the missing automated testing.
>>>>> After 4.6, we all need to focus on this. Saves a lot of time. And
>>>>> frustrations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> We're doing final testing on PR #887 and will merge it soon. From that
>>>>> point on we can look into new issues. Be aware that any PR out there
that
>>>>> was created after September 10 needs to be rebased with current master
>>>>> (when #887 is merged). Without that, no serious testing can be done.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let's be careful what to land on master. I'll only be merging Pull
>>>>> Requests that have had proper reviews with information on what was tested.
>>>>> At least one reviewer needs to actually verify it works (and show the
rest
>>>>> of us). We simply cannot assume it will work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we do this, I think we can start resolving the remaining blockers
>>>>> one-by-one and go into the first RC round. Please help out where you
can so
>>>>> we can make this a success together. Thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Looking forward to the day we have our automated testing in place ;-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Remi
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message