Open Stack

On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 15:41 -0500, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> > On 08/26/2014 07:47 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> >> TL; DR
> >> A few folks are proposing to stop running tests for neutron advanced
> >> services [ie: (lb|vpn|fw)aas] in the integrated gate, and run them only
> >> on the neutron gate.
> >>
> >> Reason: projects like nova are 100% orthogonal to neutron advanced
> >> services. Also, there have been episodes in the past of unreliability of
> >> tests for these services, and it would be good to limit affected
> >> projects considering that more api tests and scenarios are being added.
> >>
> >> -----
> >>
> >> So far the neutron full job runs tests (api and scenarios) for neutron
> >> "core" functionality as well as neutron "advanced services", which run
> >> as neutron service plugin.
> >>
> >> It's highly unlikely, if not impossible, that changes in projects such
> >> as nova, glance or ceilometer can have an impact on the stability of
> >> these services.
> >> On the other hand, instability in these services can trigger gate
> >> failures in unrelated projects as long as tests for these services are
> >> run in the neutron full job in the integrated gate. There have already
> >> been several gate-breaking bugs in lbaas scenario tests are firewall api
> >> tests.
> >> Admittedly, advanced services do not have the same level of coverage as
> >> core neutron functionality. Therefore as more tests are being added,
> >> there is an increased possibility of unearthing dormant bugs.
> >>
> >> For this reason we are proposing to not run anymore tests for neutron
> >> advanced services in the integrated gate, but keep them running on the
> >> neutron gate.
> >> This means we will have two neutron jobs:
> >> 1) check-tempest-dsvm-neutron-full which will run only "core" neutron
> >> functionality
> >> 2) check-tempest-dsvm-neutron-full-ext which will be what the neutron
> >> full job is today.
> >>
> >> The former will be part of the integrated gate, the latter will be part
> >> of the neutron gate.
> >> Considering that other integrating services should not have an impact on
> >> neutron advanced services, this should not make gate testing asymmetric.
> >>
> >> However, there might be exceptions for:
> >> - "orchestration" project like heat which in the future might leverage
> >> capabilities like load balancing
> >> - oslo-* libraries, as changes in them might have an impact on neutron
> >> advanced services, since they consume those libraries
> >>
> >> Another good question is whether "extended" tests should be performed as
> >> part of functional or tempest checks. My take on this is that scenario
> >> tests should always be part of tempest. On the other hand I reckon API
> >> tests should exclusively be part of functional tests, but as so far
> >> tempest is running a gazillion of API tests, this is probably a
> >> discussion for the medium/long term.
> >>
> >> In order to add this new job there are a few patches under review:
> >> [1] and [2] Introduces the 'full-ext' job and devstack-gate support for it.
> >> [3] Are the patches implementing a blueprint which will enable us to
> >> specify for which extensions test should be executed.
> >>
> >> Finally, one more note about smoketests. Although we're planning to get
> >> rid of them soon, we still have failures in the pg job because of [4].
> >> For this reasons smoketests are still running for postgres in the
> >> integrated gate. As load balancing and firewall API tests are part of
> >> it, they should be removed from the smoke test executed on the
> >> integrated gate ([5], [6]). This is a temporary measure until the
> >> postgres issue is fixed.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Salvatore
> >>
> >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114933/
> >> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/114932/
> >> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+topic:bp/branchless-tempest-extensions,n,z
> >> [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1305892
> >> [5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115022/
> >> [6] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115023/
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I realistically think that we should think about neutron as 2 things.
> > The L2/L3 services, and the advanced services. L2/L3 seem appropriate to
> > ensure are tightly integrated to the rest of OpenStack. The advanced
> > services really are a different beast (and honestly might be better as a
> > separate OpenStack service that's not neutron).
> >
> There is talk about spinning these out into a separate
> repository/project under the networking program. LBaaS V2, for
> example, is almost certainly going to end up this way. It's not
> unreasonable to think we could do the same with the other services as
> well.

Spinning out is definitely a goal for the LBaaS team.  This is not only
beneficial to LBaaS but also beneficial to Neutron because Neutron's
scope will shrink and it's focus more precise.  Getting to that point
will require effort from both sides.

> 
> Thanks,
> Kyle
> 
> >         -Sean
> >
> > --
> > Sean Dague
> > http://dague.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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