Open Stack

On 07/08/15 00:12, Dan Prince wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 07:40 +0100, Derek Higgins wrote:
>> See below
>>
>> On 21/07/15 20:29, Derek Higgins wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>      Something we discussed at the summit was to switch the focus of
>>> tripleo's deployment method to deploy using instack using images
>>> built
>>> with tripleo-puppet-elements. Up to now all the instack work has
>>> been
>>> done downstream of tripleo as part of rdo. Having parts of our
>>> deployment story outside of upstream gives us problems mainly
>>> because it
>>> becomes very difficult to CI what we expect deployers to use while
>>> we're
>>> developing the upstream parts.
>>>
>>> Essentially what I'm talking about here is pulling instack
>>> -undercloud
>>> upstream along with a few of its dependency projects (instack,
>>> tripleo-common, tuskar-ui-extras etc..) into tripleo and using them
>>> in
>>> our CI in place of devtest.
>>>
>>> Getting our CI working with instack is close to working but has
>>> taken
>>> longer then I expected because of various complications and
>>> distractions
>>> but I hope to have something over the next few days that we can use
>>> to
>>> replace devtest in CI, in a lot of ways this will start out by
>>> taking a
>>> step backwards but we should finish up in a better place where we
>>> will
>>> be developing (and running CI on) what we expect deployers to use.
>>>
>>> Once I have something that works I think it makes sense to drop the
>>> jobs
>>> undercloud-precise-nonha and overcloud-precise-nonha, while
>>> switching
>>> overcloud-f21-nonha to use instack, this has a few effects that
>>> need to
>>> be called out
>>>
>>> 1. We will no longer be running CI on (and as a result not
>>> supporting)
>>> most of the the bash based elements
>>> 2. We will no longer be running CI on (and as a result not
>>> supporting)
>>> ubuntu
> One more side effect is that I think it also means we no longer have
> the capability to test arbitrary Zuul refspecs for projects like Heat,
> Neutron, Nova, or Ironic in our undercloud CI jobs. We've relied on the
> source-repositories element to do this for us in the undercloud and
> since most of the instack stuff uses packages I think we would loose
> this capability.
>
> I'm all for testing with packages mind you... would just like to see us
> build packages for any projects that have Zuul refspecs inline, create
> a per job repo, and then use that to build out the resulting instack
> undercloud.
>
> This to me is the biggest loss in our initial switch to instack
> undercloud for CI. Perhaps there is a middle ground here where instack
> (which used to support tripleo-image-elements itself) could still
> support use of the source-repositories element in one CI job until we
> get our package building processes up to speed?
>
> /me really wants 'check experimental' to give us TripleO coverage for
> select undercloud projects
If Derek is receptive, I would find it useful if Delorean became a 
stackforge/openstack hosted project with better support for building 
packages from local git trees rather than remote checkouts.

With a bit of hackery I was doing this for a while, developing features 
locally on heat and other repos, then deploying an undercloud from a 
locally hosted delorean repo.

This would help getting CI working with Zuul refspecs, but it may be 
what Dan was meaning anyway when he said "get our package building 
processes up to speed"
>>> Should anybody come along in the future interested in either of
>>> these
>>> things (and prepared to put the time in) we can pick them back up
>>> again.
>>> In fact the move to puppet element based images should mean we can
>>> more
>>> easily add in extra distros in the future.
>>>
>>> 3. While we find our feet we should remove all tripleo-ci jobs from
>>> non
>>> tripleo projects, once we're confident with it we can explore
>>> adding our
>>> jobs back into other projects again
>>>
>>> Nothing has changed yet, I order to check we're all on the same
>>> page
>>> this is high level details of how I see things should proceed so
>>> shout
>>> now if I got anything wrong or you disagree.
>> Ok, I have a POC that has worked end to end in our CI environment[1],
>>
>> there are a *LOT* of workarounds in there so before we can merge it I
>>
>> need to clean up and remove some of those workarounds and todo that a
>>
>> few things need to move around, below is a list of what has to happen
>>
>> (as best I can tell)
>>
>> 1) Pull in tripleo-heat-template spec changes to master delorean
>> We had two patches in the tripleo-heat-template midstream packaging
>> that
>> havn't made it into the master packaging, these are
>> https://review.gerrithub.io/241056 Package firstboot and extraconfig
>> templates
>> https://review.gerrithub.io/241057 Package environments and newtork
>> directories
>>
>> 2) Fixes for instack-undercloud (I didn't push these directly incase
>> it
>> effected people on old versions of puppet modules)
>> https://github.com/rdo-management/instack-undercloud/pull/5
>>
>> 3) Add packaging for various repositories into openstack-packaging
>> I've pulled the packaging for 5 repositories into
>> https://github.com/openstack-packages
>> https://github.com/openstack-packages/python-ironic-inspector-client
>> https://github.com/openstack-packages/python-rdomanager-oscplugin
>> https://github.com/openstack-packages/tuskar-ui-extras
>> https://github.com/openstack-packages/ironic-discoverd
>> https://github.com/openstack-packages/tripleo-common
>>
>> I havn't imported these into gerrithub (incase following discussion
>> we
>> need to delete them again) but assuming we're in agreement we should
>> pull them into gerrithub)
>>
>> 4) update rdoinfo
>> https://github.com/redhat-openstack/rdoinfo/pull/69
>> If everybody is happy with all above we should merge this, all of the
>>
>> packages needed will now be on the delorean master repository
>>
>> 5) Move DELOREAN_REPO_URL in tripleo-ci to a new delorean repo that
>> includes all of the new packages
> There is a puppet-neutron change I needed to use the latest Neutron
> packages BTW:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/207861/
>
> Just a heads up if we rebase the Delorean URL to something more recent
> (last 2 weeks or so) that includes this neutron commit.
>
>> 6) Take most of the workarounds out of this patch[1] and merge it
>>
>> 7) Reorg the tripleo ci tests (essentially remove all of the bash
>> element based tests).
>>
>> 8) Pull instack, instack-undercloud, python-rdomanager-oscplugin,
>> triple-common, tuskar-ui-extras and maybe more into the upstream
>> gerrit
> I would really like to see us rename python-rdomanager-oscplugin. I
> think any project having the name "RDO" in it probably doesn't belong
> under TripleO proper. Looking at the project there are some distro
> specific things... but those are fairly encapsulated (or could be made
> so fairly easily).
>
>
>>   From here on the way to run the tripleo will be to follow the
>> documentation in instack-undercloud, we should no longer be using
>> devtest, this means we've lost the automation devtest gave us, so we
>> will have to slowly build that up again. The main thing we have
>> gained
>> is that we will now be developing upstream all parts of how we expect
>>
>> deployers to use tripleo.
>>
>> - we will still have dependencies on tripleo-incubator we need to
>> remove
>> these (or move things into other repositories), essentially were
>> finished with this process once we're no longer installing the
>> "tripleo"
>> package.
>> - The new CI (as is) is running on Fedora jenkins nodes but building
>> (and deploying) centos images, we also discussed that some people
>> would
>> want to develop on Fedora we will have to create a Fedora job as well
>>
>> (which I'm sure will involve the need for adding Fedora support into
>> instack)
> Yes. I would like to see instack support Fedora as well.
>
>> Everything in the first 4 steps is ready to go now, once done we can
>> investigate moving DELOREAN_REPO_URL and remove the workarounds from
>> the
>> CI patch.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Derek
>>
>> [1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/185151/
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _____
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubs
>> cribe
>> 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