Open Stack

On 07/03/2014 01:27 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>> This allows the viewer to see categories of reviews based upon their
>> divergence from OpenStack's Jenkins results. I think evaluating
>> divergence from Jenkins might be a metric worth consideration.
> 
> I think the only thing this really reflects though is how much the third
> party CI system is mirroring Jenkins.
> A system that frequently diverges may be functioning perfectly fine and
> just has a vastly different code path that it is integration testing so it
> is legitimately detecting failures the OpenStack CI cannot.
Great.

How do we measure the degree to which it is legitimately detecting failures?

Thanks Kevin,
Anita.
> 
> --
> Kevin Benton
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info> wrote:
> 
>> On 07/03/2014 07:12 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>>> Apologies for quoting again the top post of the thread.
>>>
>>> Comments inline (mostly thinking aloud)
>>> Salvatore
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 June 2014 22:22, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Stackers,
>>>>
>>>> Some recent ML threads [1] and a hot IRC meeting today [2] brought up
>> some
>>>> legitimate questions around how a newly-proposed Stackalytics report
>> page
>>>> for Neutron External CI systems [2] represented the results of an
>> external
>>>> CI system as "successful" or not.
>>>>
>>>> First, I want to say that Ilya and all those involved in the
>> Stackalytics
>>>> program simply want to provide the most accurate information to
>> developers
>>>> in a format that is easily consumed. While there need to be some
>> changes in
>>>> how data is shown (and the wording of things like "Tests Succeeded"), I
>>>> hope that the community knows there isn't any ill intent on the part of
>>>> Mirantis or anyone who works on Stackalytics. OK, so let's keep the
>>>> conversation civil -- we're all working towards the same goals of
>>>> transparency and accuracy. :)
>>>>
>>>> Alright, now, Anita and Kurt Taylor were asking a very poignant
>> question:
>>>>
>>>> "But what does CI tested really mean? just running tests? or tested to
>>>> pass some level of requirements?"
>>>>
>>>> In this nascent world of external CI systems, we have a set of issues
>> that
>>>> we need to resolve:
>>>>
>>>> 1) All of the CI systems are different.
>>>>
>>>> Some run Bash scripts. Some run Jenkins slaves and devstack-gate
>> scripts.
>>>> Others run custom Python code that spawns VMs and publishes logs to some
>>>> public domain.
>>>>
>>>> As a community, we need to decide whether it is worth putting in the
>>>> effort to create a single, unified, installable and runnable CI system,
>> so
>>>> that we can legitimately say "all of the external systems are identical,
>>>> with the exception of the driver code for vendor X being substituted in
>> the
>>>> Neutron codebase."
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think such system already exists, and it's documented here:
>>> http://ci.openstack.org/
>>> Still, understanding it is quite a learning curve, and running it is not
>>> exactly straightforward. But I guess that's pretty much understandable
>>> given the complexity of the system, isn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the goal of the external CI systems is to produce reliable,
>> consistent
>>>> results, I feel the answer to the above is "yes", but I'm interested to
>>>> hear what others think. Frankly, in the world of benchmarks, it would be
>>>> unthinkable to say "go ahead and everyone run your own benchmark suite",
>>>> because you would get wildly different results. A similar problem has
>>>> emerged here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think the particular infrastructure which might range from an
>>> openstack-ci clone to a 100-line bash script would have an impact on the
>>> "reliability" of the quality assessment regarding a particular driver or
>>> plugin. This is determined, in my opinion, by the quantity and nature of
>>> tests one runs on a specific driver. In Neutron for instance, there is a
>>> wide range of choices - from a few test cases in tempest.api.network to
>> the
>>> full smoketest job. As long there is no minimal standard here, then it
>>> would be difficult to assess the quality of the evaluation from a CI
>>> system, unless we explicitly keep into account coverage into the
>> evaluation.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, different CI infrastructures will have different
>> levels
>>> in terms of % of patches tested and % of infrastructure failures. I think
>>> it might not be a terrible idea to use these parameters to evaluate how
>>> good a CI is from an infra standpoint. However, there are still open
>>> questions. For instance, a CI might have a low patch % score because it
>>> only needs to test patches affecting a given driver.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2) There is no mediation or verification that the external CI system is
>>>> actually testing anything at all
>>>>
>>>> As a community, we need to decide whether the current system of
>>>> self-policing should continue. If it should, then language on reports
>> like
>>>> [3] should be very clear that any numbers derived from such systems
>> should
>>>> be taken with a grain of salt. Use of the word "Success" should be
>> avoided,
>>>> as it has connotations (in English, at least) that the result has been
>>>> verified, which is simply not the case as long as no verification or
>>>> mediation occurs for any external CI system.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3) There is no clear indication of what tests are being run, and
>> therefore
>>>> there is no clear indication of what "success" is
>>>>
>>>> I think we can all agree that a test has three possible outcomes: pass,
>>>> fail, and skip. The results of a test suite run therefore is nothing
>> more
>>>> than the aggregation of which tests passed, which failed, and which were
>>>> skipped.
>>>>
>>>> As a community, we must document, for each project, what are expected
>> set
>>>> of tests that must be run for each merged patch into the project's
>> source
>>>> tree. This documentation should be discoverable so that reports like [3]
>>>> can be crystal-clear on what the data shown actually means. The report
>> is
>>>> simply displaying the data it receives from Gerrit. The community needs
>> to
>>>> be proactive in saying "this is what is expected to be tested." This
>> alone
>>>> would allow the report to give information such as "External CI system
>> ABC
>>>> performed the expected tests. X tests passed. Y tests failed. Z tests
>> were
>>>> skipped." Likewise, it would also make it possible for the report to
>> give
>>>> information such as "External CI system DEF did not perform the expected
>>>> tests.", which is excellent information in and of itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Agreed. In Neutron we have enforced CIs but not yet agreed on what's the
>>> minimum set of tests we expect them to run. I reckon this will be fixed
>>> soon.
>>>
>>> I'll try to look at what "SUCCESS" is from a naive standpoint: a CI says
>>> "SUCCESS" if the test suite it rans passed; then one should have means to
>>> understand whether a CI might blatantly lie or tell "half truths". For
>>> instance saying it passes tempest.api.network while
>>> tempest.scenario.test_network_basic_ops has not been executed is a half
>>> truth, in my opinion.
>>> Stackalitycs can help here, I think. One could create "CI classes"
>>> according to how much they're close to the level of the upstream gate,
>> and
>>> then parse results posted to classify CIs. Now, before cursing me, I
>>> totally understand that this won't be easy at all to implement!
>>> Furthermore, I don't know whether how this should be reflected in gerrit.
>>>
>>>
>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>> In thinking about the likely answers to the above questions, I believe
>> it
>>>> would be prudent to change the Stackalytics report in question [3] in
>> the
>>>> following ways:
>>>>
>>>> a. Change the "Success %" column header to "% Reported +1 Votes"
>>>> b. Change the phrase " Green cell - tests ran successfully, red cell -
>>>> tests failed" to "Green cell - System voted +1, red cell - System voted
>> -1"
>>>>
>>>
>>> That makes sense to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> and then, when we have more and better data (for example, # tests
>> passed,
>>>> failed, skipped, etc), we can provide more detailed information than
>> just
>>>> "reported +1" or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it should not be too hard to start adding minimal measures such
>> as
>>> "% of voted patches"
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> -jay
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-
>>>> June/038933.html
>>>> [2] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/third_party/2014/
>>>> third_party.2014-06-30-18.01.log.html
>>>> [3] http://stackalytics.com/report/ci/neutron/7
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Salvadore.
>>
>> Some additional things to look at:
>>
>> Sean Dague has created a tool in stackforge gerrit-dash-creator:
>>
>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/gerrit-dash-creator/tree/README.rst
>> which has the ability to make interesting queries on gerrit results. One
>> such example can be found here: http://paste.openstack.org/show/85416/
>> (Note when this url was created there was a bug in the syntax and this
>> url works in chrome but not firefox, Sean tells me the firefox bug has
>> been addressed - though this url hasn't been altered with the new syntax
>> yet)
>>
>> This allows the viewer to see categories of reviews based upon their
>> divergence from OpenStack's Jenkins results. I think evaluating
>> divergence from Jenkins might be a metric worth consideration.
>>
>> Also a gui representation worth looking at is Mikal Still's gui for
>> Neutron ci health:
>> http://www.rcbops.com/gerrit/reports/neutron-cireport.html
>> and Nova ci health:
>> http://www.rcbops.com/gerrit/reports/nova-cireport.html
>>
>> I don't know the details of how the graphs are calculated in these
>> pages, but being able to view passed/failed/missed and compare them to
>> Jenkins is an interesting approach and I feel has some merit.
>>
>> Thanks I think we are getting some good information out in this thread
>> and look forward to hearing more thoughts.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Anita.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>