[ironic] [qa] ironic-tempest-plugin CI bloat
gmann at ghanshyammann.com
Thu Jan 10 07:16:28 UTC 2019
---- On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 03:39:00 +0900 Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com> wrote ----
> On 1/2/19 7:24 PM, Clark Boylan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, at 3:18 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> >> Hi all and happy new year :)
> >> As you know, tempest plugins are branchless, so the CI of ironic-
> >> tempest-plugin
> >> has to run tests on all supported branches. Currently it amounts to 16
> >> (!)
> >> voting devstack jobs. With each of them have some small probability of a
> >> random
> >> failure, it is impossible to land anything without at least one recheck,
> >> usually
> >> more.
> >> The bad news is, we only run master API tests job, and these tests are
> >> changed
> >> more often that the other. We already had a minor stable branch breakage
> >> because
> >> of it . We need to run 3 more jobs: for Pike, Queens and Rocky. And
> >> I've just
> >> spotted a missing master multinode job, which is defined but does not
> >> run for
> >> some reason :(
Yeah, that is because ironic multinode's parent job "tempest-multinode-full" is restricted to run only on
master. It was done that way until we had all multinode zuulv3 things backported till pike which is
completed already. I am making this job for pike onwards  so that multinode job can be run on stable
> >> Here is my proposal to deal with gate bloat on ironic-tempest-plugin:
> >> 1. Do not run CI jobs at all for unsupported branches and branches in extended
> >> maintenance. For Ocata this has already been done in .
> >> 2. Make jobs running with N-3 (currently Pike) and older non-voting (and
> >> thus
> >> remove them from the gate queue). I have a gut feeling that a change
> >> that breaks
> >> N-3 is very likely to break N-2 (currently Queens) as well, so it's
> >> enough to
> >> have N-2 voting.
> >> 3. Make the discovery and the multinode jobs from all stable branches
> >> non-voting. These jobs cover the tests that get changed very infrequently (if
> >> ever). These are also the jobs with the highest random failure rate.
> > Has any work been done to investigate why these jobs fail? And if not maybe we should stop running the jobs entirely. Non voting jobs that aren't reliable will just get ignored.
> From my experience it's PXE failing or just generic timeout on slow nodes. Note
> that they still don't fail too often, it's their total number that makes it
> problematic. When you have 20 jobs each failing with, say, 5% rate it's just 35%
> chance of passing (unless I cannot do math).
> But to answer your question, yes, we do put work in that. We just never got to
> 0% of random failures.
While making the multinode job running for stable branches, I got the consistent failure
on multinode job for pike, queens which run fine on Rocky. Failure are on migration tests due to
hostname mismatch. I have not debugged the failure yet but we will be making multinode
runnable on stable branches also.
> >> 4. Add the API tests, voting for Queens to master, non-voting for Pike (as
> >> proposed above).
> >> This should leave us with 20 jobs, but with only 11 of them voting. Which is
> >> still a lot, but probably manageable.
> >> The corresponding change is , please comment here or there.
> >> Dmitry
> >>  https://review.openstack.org/622177
> >>  https://review.openstack.org/621537
> >>  https://review.openstack.org/627955
More information about the openstack-discuss