cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Freeze everything until we get CI
Date Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:22:13 GMT
I'd love to see this in the cloudstack repository.
Others might have an easier time getting access to hardware, and could use
it to help test releases/PR


Erik

Den fredag 29. januar 2016 skrev Bharat Kumar <bharat.kumar@citrix.com>
følgende:

> yes, we would be sharing it with the community and get this running in the
> ACS infra.
> Currently it can create a cloudstack test bed, runs tests and email the
> results.
>
> Here are some details on how this works and what is needed to set this up.
>
>   *   we use jenkins, cobbler, puppet and marvin to create cloudstack
> setup.
>   *   jenkins triggers the test runs, collects the test results and mails
> them.
>   *   cobbler is use to image the hosts and create Management server.
>   *   The management server is a VM and each time a test run is triggered
> we pull the latest code, build (dev setup) the MS and run it.
>   *   Need IPMI enabled servers to uses and Hosts in cloudstack setup.
> Cobbler installs the required OS on these hosts.
>   *   We use a XenServer to create management server VMs.
>
> The resources required to set this up.
>
>   *   We need two servers to host the VMs used in CI, one XenServer to
> host the Cloustack management servers and at least 3 IPMI enabled servers
> per cloudstack setup to run the BVTs.
>   *   some set of IPs (public and private IPs) and vlans.
>
> Once we have the resources in ACS infra we can start setting this up. But
> some work needs to
> be done to integrate this with the github to test and post the results in
> the PRs instead of mailing them.
>
> I think the best way to share it will be by implementing this in the ACS
> infra. Once we do this every one can pitch in, replicate and further
> contribute to this.
>
> Meanwhile i will commit the scripts to set this up and keep this going.
>
> Thanks,
> Bharat.
>
>
> On 28-Jan-2016, at 7:37 PM, Erik Weber <terbolous@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> <mailto:terbolous@gmail.com <javascript:;>>> wrote:
>
> Why not share it as is, then the community could help improving this,
> rather than this being a single company effort?
>
> --
> Erik
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Bharat Kumar <bharat.kumar@citrix.com
> <javascript:;><mailto:bharat.kumar@citrix.com <javascript:;>>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I agree that we need to have a CI to deal with the large volume of PRs.
> The current travis CI is not good enough as it runs only simulator tests.
> We identified this issue and came up with a effective CI for automating
> test runs for a each PR. This is already functional, with few github
> integration aspects pending. We are internally stabilizing it before
> sharing it.
>
> We have been in touch with David Nalley ( CC’ed )  in making this
> operational for entire community using ACS infra.
>
>
> For your reference, here is the FS I have shared with the community
> earlier and also in this thread before, your feedback is welcome.
> (
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Test+bed+orchestrator+and+test+runner+to+enable+continuos+integration
> ).
>
> Thanks,
> Bharat.
>
>
>
>
> On 28-Jan-2016, at 4:26 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> <javascript:;><mailto:
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com <javascript:;>>> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I’m sorry to get to have the PRs merged without adhering to the strict
> testing requirements. While I think PRs were alright and it did not break
> anything, the way it was merged made people uncomfortable that there is
> some sort of haste in doing this fast which there is none.
>
> I’ll not repeat this and hope you understand that I never had any hidden
> agenda but to simply help people with some PRs.
>
> Regards.
>
> On 28-Jan-2016, at 11:36 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com
> <javascript:;><mailto:
> runseb@gmail.com <javascript:;>>> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> My proposal to freeze until we get CI was indeed due to seeing Rohit’s
> commit but was by no means a personal attack or judgment.
>
> We have lots of PR pending (as mentioned before by Remi) and we need
> people to help review and test.
> So thanks to Rohit.
>
> My only concerns were two fold:
>
> 1- We need  to keep to adhere to our release principles:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack+4.6+and+up
>
> Hence I replied to some PR asking if they needed to be merged directly in
> master or not and wondered about the release branches.
>
> With so many releases in flight it is not yet clear to me where we start
> to apply a PR ?
>
> 2- We need to keep testing and post results of tests.
>
> Currently it is manual and but there has been a strong guarantee in the
> last releases that the PR where not going to break things.
> While I agree that some PR are small and *should* not break things,
> history has shown that even small unrelated things *somehow* can affect the
> behavior of cloudstack.
>
> So I proposed a freeze because:
>
> - Remi stepped down as RM and we don’t have an official RM yet.
> - The code has reached a solid state and we don’t want to do anything that
> changes that
> - We have a proposal for LTS on the floor
> - We still don’t have CI.
>
> So my standpoint is that we focused in the last 6 months on getting our
> release principles right (pending LTS principles), code has stabilized and
> we can release. Awesome.
>
> Now is probably a good time to concentrate our limited resources on
> figuring out automated CI.
>
> - For instance as far as I know Travis is bonkers…(reports green but does
> not do anything)
> - And with citrix stepping out, we need to take control of the jenkins
> slaves (some of which are on AWS and still paid by Citrix…)
>
> My email while triggered by seeing Rohit’s commits, was not a judgement or
> critic of his actions, so let’s not get into a personal argument here.
>
> -Sebastien
>
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> So, since some have directly (over IM etc) or indirectly have thrown
> allegations on me since I merged most of the PRs.
> Here is a list of those 12 PRs and answers on why they were merged on
> case-by-case basis.
> Please keep any further replies technical and to the specific PR, please
> point out and revert if needed:
>
> 1. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1288
>
> Enough LGTMs, JS related change and fix tested with UI screenshot from
> Remi. I personally looked at the diff and therefore then merged.
>
> 2. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1274/files
>
> Enough LGTMs, a simple NPE fix one-liner. I personally thought we can
> cheat here and given Travis/Jenkins passed I merged it.
>
> 3. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1261/files
>
> Enough LGTMs, the diff only removed unused variable leading to change in
> the constructor definition. Explicit integration tests are not necessary as
> it’d simply dead-code removal and as the simulator smoke tests passed with
> Travis/Jenkins passed so I merged it.
>
> 4. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1048
>
> Enough LGTMs. This change is related to a marvin test itself where it adds
> 2 new test methods — so no need to run regression integration test. The
> integration test result of the marvin test was shared in the comment. PR
> merged on this basis.
>
> 5. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1044
>
> Enough LGTMs and regression tests results (shared as attachments by Daan,
> in case someone missed), so merged.
>
> 6. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/969
>
> Enough LGTMs and regression tests results (shared as attachments by Daan,
> in case someone missed), so merged.
>
> 7. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/855
>
> Enough LGTMs and regression tests results by Remi, so merged.
>
> 8. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/831
>
> Enough LGTMs and only text changes in API doc-string so merged given
> Travis/Jenkins passed.
>
> 9. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/830/files
>
> Enough LGTMs and NPE fixes, so no explicit integration tests required
> given Travis/Jenkins passed.
>
> 10. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1256/files
>
> Enough LGTMs and simple Java OOP fix with Travis/Jenkins passed so merged
> this. I’m aware of this codebase.
>
> 11. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1240
>
> Enough LGTMs, the changes would require manual tests wrt usage server etc
> as well as confirmed in comments. I had seen the regression test result (of
> the new/modified marvin test wrt of the feature) so merged. The regression
> test suite does not include this among other tests.
>
> 12. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1289
>
> Enough LGTMs, this was a findbugs related fix. Travis/Jenkins passed on it
> and the findbugs mvn job result was shared to confirm that the fix works
> now. This was not merged by me.
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> Rohit Yadav
> Software Architect   ,       ShapeBlue
> d:    | s: +44 203 603 0540   |      m:      +91 8826230892
> e:   rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com <javascript:;> | t:   |      w:
> www.shapeblue.com
> a:   53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK
>
> Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue
> Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under
> license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a
> company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape
> Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of
> South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is
> a registered trademark.
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended
> solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or
> opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based
> upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender
> if you believe you have received this email in error.
>
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build | CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework
> CloudStack Consulting | CloudStack Software Engineering
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support | CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses
>
>
> Regards.
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<
> http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – rapid
> IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> |
> CloudStack Software Engineering<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | CloudStack
> Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message