[openstack-dev] [ci][infra][tripleo] Multi-staged check pipelines for Zuul v3 proposal

Wesley Hayutin whayutin at redhat.com
Tue May 15 20:35:48 UTC 2018

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:16 PM Sagi Shnaidman <sshnaidm at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi, Bogdan
> I like the idea with undercloud job. Actually if undercloud fails, I'd
> stop all other jobs, because it doens't make sense to run them. Seeing the
> same failure in 10 jobs doesn't add too much. So maybe adding undercloud
> job as dependency for all multinode jobs would be great idea. I think it's
> worth to check also how long it will delay jobs. Will all jobs wait until
> undercloud job is running? Or they will be aborted when undercloud job is
> failing?
> However I'm very sceptical about multinode containers and scenarios jobs,
> they could fail because of very different reasons, like race conditions in
> product or infra issues. Having skipping some of them will lead to more
> rechecks from devs trying to discover all problems in a row, which will
> delay the development process significantly.
> Thanks

I agree on both counts w/ Sagi here.
Thanks Sagi

> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobreli at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>> An update for your review please folks
>> Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobreli at redhat.com> writes:
>>> Hello.
>>>> As Zuul documentation [0] explains, the names "check", "gate", and
>>>> "post"  may be altered for more advanced pipelines. Is it doable to
>>>> introduce, for particular openstack projects, multiple check
>>>> stages/steps as check-1, check-2 and so on? And is it possible to make
>>>> the consequent steps reusing environments from the previous steps
>>>> finished with?
>>>> Narrowing down to tripleo CI scope, the problem I'd want we to solve
>>>> with this "virtual RFE", and using such multi-staged check pipelines,
>>>> is reducing (ideally, de-duplicating) some of the common steps for
>>>> existing CI jobs.
>>> What you're describing sounds more like a job graph within a pipeline.
>>> See:
>>> https://docs.openstack.org/infra/zuul/user/config.html#attr-job.dependencies
>>> for how to configure a job to run only after another job has completed.
>>> There is also a facility to pass data between such jobs.
>>> ... (skipped) ...
>>> Creating a job graph to have one job use the results of the previous job
>>> can make sense in a lot of cases.  It doesn't always save *time*
>>> however.
>>> It's worth noting that in OpenStack's Zuul, we have made an explicit
>>> choice not to have long-running integration jobs depend on shorter pep8
>>> or tox jobs, and that's because we value developer time more than CPU
>>> time.  We would rather run all of the tests and return all of the
>>> results so a developer can fix all of the errors as quickly as possible,
>>> rather than forcing an iterative workflow where they have to fix all the
>>> whitespace issues before the CI system will tell them which actual tests
>>> broke.
>>> -Jim
>> I proposed a few zuul dependencies [0], [1] to tripleo CI pipelines for
>> undercloud deployments vs upgrades testing (and some more). Given that
>> those undercloud jobs have not so high fail rates though, I think Emilien
>> is right in his comments and those would buy us nothing.
>> From the other side, what do you think folks of making the
>> tripleo-ci-centos-7-3nodes-multinode depend on
>> tripleo-ci-centos-7-containers-multinode [2]? The former seems quite faily
>> and long running, and is non-voting. It deploys (see featuresets configs
>> [3]*) a 3 nodes in HA fashion. And it seems almost never passing, when the
>> containers-multinode fails - see the CI stats page [4]. I've found only a 2
>> cases there for the otherwise situation, when containers-multinode fails,
>> but 3nodes-multinode passes. So cutting off those future failures via the
>> dependency added, *would* buy us something and allow other jobs to wait
>> less to commence, by a reasonable price of somewhat extended time of the
>> main zuul pipeline. I think it makes sense and that extended CI time will
>> not overhead the RDO CI execution times so much to become a problem. WDYT?
>> [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/568275/
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/568278/
>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/568326/
>> [3]
>> https://docs.openstack.org/tripleo-quickstart/latest/feature-configuration.html
>> [4] http://tripleo.org/cistatus.html
>> * ignore the column 1, it's obsolete, all CI jobs now using configs
>> download AFAICT...
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Bogdan Dobrelya,
>> Irc #bogdando
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> --
> Best regards
> Sagi Shnaidman
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20180515/7488da9f/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list