Open Stack

Ivan,

BVT is not source of truth. BVT handles couple of scenarios from hundreds.
You should rely on swarm test and get parity in % of failed tests.

--
Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ivan Berezovskiy <iberezovskiy at mirantis.com
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> First of all, I want to mention (I don't blame anyone), that two patchsets
> in bug description
> ([0], [1]) were not merged into upstream puppet-openstacklib module (and
> commit
> messages don't contain links to upstream review). I see only one proposed
> patch [2]
> from Dmitry Ilyin, which was abandoned at Sep 18. Now it's restored and
> those issues should be fixed using it.
>
> Second, our patches (moving to librarian) were tested several times under
> Fuel CI jobs,
> on BVTs, smoke_neutron tests with Kilo and Liberty code. Unfortunately, we
> didn't find
> problems with deployment.
>
> Third, two weeks passed after merging of our patches for librarian, and
> only now
> we are speaking about regressions.
>
> Patch [2] covers missing two commits [0], [1], that's why I suggest to get
> it merged
> and then recheck issues, because it's very late for reverting.
>
>
> [0] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219668/
> [1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/223676/
> [2] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/220224/
>
> 2015-10-19 20:59 GMT+03:00 Sergii Golovatiuk <sgolovatiuk at mirantis.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The policy should be revert, IMHO. cherry-pick doesn't guarantee the
>> consistency, so it will take more time... Also this way gives time to write
>> tests to exclude the regression in future.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Sergii Golovatiuk,
>> Skype #golserge
>> IRC #holser
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Matthew Mosesohn <mmosesohn at mirantis.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Fuelers,
>>>
>>> It seems we have a regression on two critical bugs because of switching
>>> Fuel to puppet-openstacklib:
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1507685
>>>
>>> This regressed to patches that were in Fuel Library that addressed two
>>> bugs marked as Critical.
>>>
>>> We should improve the acceptance criteria for moving to upstream modules
>>> to ensure no bugs are regressed that relate to the particular Puppet module
>>> being migrated.
>>>
>>> Secondly, what should our policy be? Revert the switch to upstream
>>> module? Or just work on cherry-picking the appropriate fixes?
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Matthew Mosesohn
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks, Ivan Berezovskiy
> MOS Puppet Team Lead
> at Mirantis <https://www.mirantis.com/>
>
> slack: iberezovskiy
> skype: bouhforever
> phone: + 7-960-343-42-46
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151020/f3d68c8d/attachment.html>