[openstack-dev] Cinder Third-Party CI: what next? (was Re: [cinder] Request exemption for removal of NetApp FC drivers (no voting CI))

Alex Meade mr.alex.meade at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 00:40:37 UTC 2015

As an Engineer running the NetApp CI, I thought it would be a good time to
chime in here. While I have many opinions around this whole process, I will
try my best to avoid any judgement and minimize ratholes.

Over the past year, we have implemented a scalable CI system that is now
running tests against 5 NetApp drivers for every patch (including stable
branches). We have already prevented numerous bugs, some that would
completely break OpenStack/Netapp integrations and other times we caught
issues with the gate before it had time to break. We promptly worked with
the code contributors in each of those cases. We have run over 50k test
runs in total.

Now I realize *those* CI tests have nothing to do with the FibreChannel
drivers specifically, however, it took significant resources to get where
we are now and CI has been our top priority. In the case of FC, we do test
it regularly but atm we only have one FC capable server and 2 FC capable
storage controllers. We have been working diligently with IT to acquire
more for CI use but as most of you know, FC gear is not cheap and IT can
take time. I would agree that we haven’t been panicking and calling IT
every day at 8am under the belief that the community was aware of our
situation and was ok with these drivers taking a bit longer. I might add
that the FC drivers are just a wrapper around our iscsi drivers (the only
difference being the zoning decorator).

Now enough about NetApp, I wish folks would consider their perspective on
the situation. It’s a huge ask to implement a CI system that tests every
patch and not everyone has unlimited resources. Third party CI systems
should be a huge deal for the third party, they should care way more than
Cinder core. Although I understand Cinder not wanting deployers to attempt
to use broken code in their project, I am certain a vendor does not want
broker integration.

Given the nights and weekends I have spent on third party CI, I would
appreciate some empathy on the matter. I’m sure there are plenty of other
folks that would agree. Please ask me any questions out right and I will
give you an answer. I may have been confused but I was under the impression
that NetApp FC had an exception to the deadline given the many
conversations that had occurred.


On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Mike Perez <thingee at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21:51 Mon 23 Mar     , Rochelle Grober wrote:
> > I’d like to suggest that the myriad wiki pages and spreadsheets for Third
> > Party CI also be consolidated to a more manageable count.  Just looking
> for
> > maintainers contact, you can find information (often conflicting) in
> > Stackalytics, on the ThirdPartyDrivers page, on the Cinder PTL’s google
> doc
> > and who knows where else for the Neutron maintainers.  Even finding which
> > tests to run takes linking through a number of Cinder wiki pages.
> >
> > The teams have done a great job documenting a process that started out as
> > lore, but I think the beginning of L would be a great time to revisit and
> > reorganize the documentation for clarity, conciseness and single
> locations
> > (version controlled) of critical information.
> More than happy to update my doc. My doc was purely for me to expose
> a non-editable doc of what I was seeing since I made myself the point of
> contact for Cinder CI's. My spreadsheet came before the thirdparty CI
> maintainer wiki page had any useful information on it. I got the contacts
> from
> the git logs of the people who actually worked on the drivers. I also was
> dealing with cases where a vendor hired an outside company to do their
> driver,
> which made things difficult for contact.
> The one wiki page people should pay attention to is the Cinder Third Party
> wiki
> page which now has a link to the status page:
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Cinder/tested-3rdParty-drivers
> --
> Mike Perez
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20150323/544c5675/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list