openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving out runtime images and tests
Date Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:04:49 GMT
This is good feedback I will be looking into spliting the runtimes into
repos
I created an Issue here
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/issues/2791

-- Carlos

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:58 AM Rob Allen <rob@akrabat.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Seems like its inevitable as 50 min build times are really long!
>
> I think all runtimes should be split out. The unit tests for OpenWhisk
> itself shouldn't need a runtime anyway. Integration tests for core could
> pick a runtime at random to pull in.
>
>
> > On 12 Sep 2017, at 21:02, Markus Thömmes <markusthoemmes@me.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds all sensible to me.
> >
> > To 1: Sounds like the right thing to do, if versions are common enough?
> Like major bumps could probably use different repos but I guess we can just
> try and find out what works. As a starter, the list you posted sounds
> sensible to me!
>
> I agree with Tyson that one repo per runtime-type is a good idea. If we're
> going to release multiple major language versions simultaneously, then we
> need separate repositories at the version level  (e.g.
> openwhisk-action-nodejs6, openwhisk-action-nodejs8, openwhisk-action-php7,
> etc) or we need to use branches within a runtime-type repo and have a
> release system that knows which branches are "release" ones. I suspect
> separate repositories is easier, but it's "just" tooling.
>
> > 2. By Integration Tests I meant: Do the repos need to standup a whole
> OpenWhisk system and then run integrations tests or can we get away with
> just unit tests. I think, the best would be the latter since its the most
> agile but we might not be quite there yet. Again something we should just
> try and will discover on the way I think!
>
> For all the split out runtimes, I think they obviously need unit tests,
> but we are going to need need integration tests for each one as it'll be
> really easy to miss a change to either what is sent to the runtime or what
> is expected to be sent back from it. It'll be really easy to end up with
> something broken if we're not careful.
>
> Another possibility is that we have a separate set of unit tests that all
> the runtimes use. Detected a change in runtime-unit-tests and getting
> travis to run the unit tests for all the runtime repositories could be a
> challenge though.
>
> >
> > 3. Yep, it's probably just build and push the images on each commit just
> like we do for master.
> >
> > One more thing (hehe): Do we support independent tags of runtime images
> vs. the deployed system? Today we use the same tag that we use to deploy
> the system to pull the runtime images. There might be something left to do
> here like: Do we need a specific version for each runtime (most flexible)
> or can we get away with just using latest for each runtime (easiest to
> maintain). Versioning might be needed to be able to make breaking changes
> but still pin versions and to keep production systems stable that way
> (otherwise they might pull an incompatible image while in action). Thinking
> about it: We need independent versioning per runtime.
>
> Each runtime needs its own version I think. I think that python2 and
> python3 are going to need their own separate version, so as noted above,
> separate repositories for each major language version would simplify life.
>
> I think we'll need to pin major version numbers of the runtimes to
> OpenWhisk for release. e.g. it'll be a pain if the latest version of
> OpenWhisk 1.x currently works with openwhisk-action-nodejs6:1.4.1, then
> when we release openwhisk-action-nodejs6:1.5.0, the next release of
> OpenWhisk 1.x should just pick it up without having to modify an commit a
> file change in OpenWhisk core. However OpenWhisk 1.x should not pick up
> openwhisk-action-nodejs6:2.0.0.
>
> Essentially, I think that we're going to have to start committing to a
> stable API between core and the runtimes if we everything's all separate.
>
>
> Finally, for what it's worth, I'd quite like to see the CLI also split out
> and again, integration tests to ensure it works with OpenWhisk core.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob...
>
>
>
> >
> > Am 12. September 2017 um 21:56 schrieb Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> +1 good points Tyson.
> >>
> >> -r
> >>
> >>> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Tyson Norris <tnorris@adobe.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1 in general
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Tasks we'd need to do:
> >>>> 1. Setup a repo per runtime.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe repo per runtime-type, instead of literally each runtime -
> specifically names like: openwhisk-action-nodejs, openwhisk-action-java,
> openwhisk-action-dockerskeleton, openwhisk-action-php,
> openwhisk-action-python, openwhisk-action-swift
> >>> (Since each type should share much of the same tests, I think.)
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Move the runtime build + tests there (testwise I would rather copy
> and own some dependencies than trying to go DRY. The current setup for
> dependent repos needs quite some cleanup and is super hard to maintain for
> updates in the main repo). We can discuss if we need Integration Tests for
> each of the runtimes or if the "unit" tests we have are sufficient here.
> >>>
> >>> We can DRY it *later* if wanted by releasing mvn artifacts of test
> base classes (or all of tests) from core, or something like that, but until
> that is implemented, agree that copying is better.
> >>>
> >>> By “Integration Tests” do you mean to run as part of core tests? I
> think something minimal would be good like “test that at least nodejs
> runtime works” (e.g. health check), but not “test every runtime as part of
> core integration tests"
> >>>
> >>>> 3. Implement a release process for the runtime images to Dockerhub.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> This should be the same as the release process for core images right?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Tyson
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> The runtimes update fairly rarely so I wouldn't really bother with
> too strict of a versioning there, at least not for the first shot. Process
> wise it does seem straightforwardly doable.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>> Markus
> >>>
>
> --
> Development thoughts at http://akrabat.com
> Daily Jotter for macOS at http://dailyjotter.com
>
>

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