Open Stack

Hey Adam,

A bit late here, sorry.
Ceph works fine with OpenStack Kilo but at the time we developed the
integration tests for puppet-ceph with Kilo, there were some issues
specific to our test implementation and we chose to settle with Juno
at the time.

On the topic of CI, I can no longer sponsor the third party CI
(through my former employer, iWeb) as I am with Red Hat now.
I see this as an opportunity to drop the custom system tests with
vagrant and instead improve the acceptance tests.

What do you think ?


David Moreau Simard
Senior Software Engineer | Openstack RDO

dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter]


On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Adam Lawson <alawson at aqorn.com> wrote:
> I'm confused, what is the context here? We use Ceph with OpenStack Kilo
> without issue.
>
> On Nov 23, 2015 2:28 PM, "David Moreau Simard" <dms at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Last I remember, David Gurtner tried to use Kilo instead of Juno but
>> he bumped into some problems and we settled for Juno at the time [1].
>> At this point we should already be testing against both Liberty and
>> Infernalis, we're overdue for an upgrade in that regard.
>>
>> But, yes, +1 to split acceptance tests:
>> 1) Ceph
>> 2) Ceph + Openstack
>>
>> Actually learning what failed is indeed challenging sometimes, I don't
>> have enough experience with the acceptance testing to suggest anything
>> better.
>> We have the flexibility of creating different logfiles, maybe we can
>> find a way to split out the relevant bits into another file.
>>
>> [1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153783/
>>
>> David Moreau Simard
>> Senior Software Engineer | Openstack RDO
>>
>> dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter]
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Andrew Woodward <xarses at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I think I have a good lead on the recent failures in openstack / swift /
>> > radosgw integration component that we have since disabled. It looks like
>> > there is a oslo.config version upgrade conflict in the Juno repo we
>> > where
>> > using for CentOS. I think moving to Kilo will help sort this out, but at
>> > the
>> > same time I think it would be prudent to separate the Ceph v.s.
>> > OpenStack
>> > integration into separate jobs so that we have a better idea of which is
>> > a
>> > problem. If there is census for this, I'd need some direction / help, as
>> > well as set them up as non-voting for now.
>> >
>> > Looking into this I also found that the only place that we do
>> > integration
>> > any of the cephx logic was in the same test so we will need to create a
>> > component for it in the ceph integration as well as use it in the
>> > OpenStack
>> > side.
>> >
>> > Lastly un-winding the integration failure seemed overly complex. Is
>> > there a
>> > way that we can correlate the test status inside the job at a high level
>> > besides the entire job passed / failed without breaking them into
>> > separate
>> > jobs?
>> > --
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Andrew Woodward
>> >
>> > Mirantis
>> >
>> > Fuel Community Ambassador
>> >
>> > Ceph Community
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>