[openstack-dev] [swift] [qa] which test configs does the swift team find useful
sean at dague.net
Tue Nov 25 16:01:04 UTC 2014
On 11/25/2014 10:54 AM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:03:41AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
>> As we are trying to do smart disaggregation of tests in the gate, I
>> think it's important to figure out which test configurations seem to be
>> actually helping, and which aren't. As the swift team has long had a
>> functional test job, this seems like a good place to start. (Also the
>> field deploy / upgrade story on Swift is probably one of the best of any
>> OpenStack project, so removing friction is probably in order.)
>> gate-swift-pep8 SUCCESS in 1m 16s
>> gate-swift-docs SUCCESS in 1m 48s
>> gate-swift-python27 SUCCESS in 3m 24s
>> check-tempest-dsvm-full SUCCESS in 56m 51s
>> check-tempest-dsvm-postgres-full SUCCESS in 54m 53s
>> check-tempest-dsvm-neutron-full SUCCESS in 1h 06m 09s
>> check-tempest-dsvm-neutron-heat-slow SUCCESS in 31m 18s
>> check-grenade-dsvm SUCCESS in 39m 33s
>> gate-tempest-dsvm-large-ops SUCCESS in 29m 34s
>> gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-large-ops SUCCESS in 22m 11s
>> gate-swift-tox-func SUCCESS in 2m 50s (non-voting)
>> check-swift-dsvm-functional SUCCESS in 17m 12s
>> check-devstack-dsvm-cells SUCCESS in 15m 18s
>> I think in looking at that it's obvious that:
>> * check-devstack-dsvm-cells
>> * check-tempest-dsvm-postgres-full
>> * gate-tempest-dsvm-large-ops
>> * gate-tempest-dsvm-neutron-large-ops
>> * check-tempest-dsvm-neutron-full
>> Provide nothing new to swift, the access patterns on the glance => swift
>> interaction aren't impacted on any of those, neither is the heat / swift
>> resource tests or volumes / swift backup tests.
> So I agree with all of this and think removing the jobs is fine, except the
> postgres job and the neutron jobs do test the glance->swift access pattern, and
> do run the heat swift tests. But, it does raise the bigger question which was
> brought up in Darmstadt and again at summit on having a single gating
> configuration. Maybe we should just switch to doing that now and finally drop
> the postgres job completely.
I'm not saying it doesn't test it. I'm saying it doesn't test it in any
way which is different from the mysql job.
"Provide nothing new to swift"...
>> check-tempest-dsvm-neutron-heat-slow doesn't touch swift either (it's
>> actually remarkably sparse of any content).
> I think we probably should be removing this job from everywhere, we've slowly
> been whittling away the job because it doesn't seem to be capable of being run
> reliably. This also doesn't run any swift resource tests, in it's current form
> it runs 6 neutron resource tests and thats it.
There is a separate thread on that as well.
>> Which kind of leaves us with 1 full stack run, and the grenade job. Have
>> those caught real bugs? Does there remain value in them? Have other
>> teams that rely on swift found those to block regressions?
> So I think we'll need these at a minimum for the time being. Giving our current
> project structure (and governance requirements) having jobs that test things
> work together I feel is important. I know we've caught issues with glance->swift
> layer with these jobs in the past as well as other bugs as well as bugs in swift
> before. (although they're very infrequent compared to other projects)
>> Let's figure out what's helpful, and what's not, and purge out all the
>> non helpful stuff.
> -Matt Treinish
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 465 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the OpenStack-dev