Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:46:20PM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm currently working by iteration to get a new upstream job that test
> upgrades and update.
> Until now, I'm doing baby steps. I bootstrapped the work to upgrade
> undercloud, see https> ://review.openstack.org/#/c/346995/ for details
> (it's almost working hitting a packaging issue now).
> 
> Now I am interested by having 2 overcloud jobs:
> 
> - update: Newton -> Newton: basically, we already have it with
> gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-upgrades - but my proposal is to use
> multinode work that James started.
> I have a PoC (2 lines of code):
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351330/1 that works, it deploys an
> overcloud using packaging, applies the patch in THT and run overcloud
> update. I tested it and it works fine, (I tried to break Keystone).
> Right now the job name is
> gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-nonha-multinode-upgrades-nv because I took
> example from the existing ovb job that does the exact same thing.
> I propose to rename it to
> gate-tripleo-ci-centos-7-nonha-multinode-updates-nv. What do you
> think?

This sounds good, and it seems to be a valid replacement for the old
"upgrades" job - it won't catch all kinds of update bugs (in particular it
obviously won't run any packaged based updates at all), but it will catch
the most serious template regressions, which will be useful coverage to
maintain I think.

> - upgrade: Mitaka -> Newton: I haven't started anything yet but the
> idea is to test the upgrade from stable to master, using multinode job
> now (not ovb).
> I can prototype something but I would like to hear from our community before.

I think getting this coverage in place is very important, we're
experiencing a lot of post-release pain due to the lack of this coverage,
so +1 on any steps we can take to get some coverage here, I'd say go ahead
and do the prototype if you have time to do it.

You may want to chat with weshay, as I know there are some RDO upgrade
tests which were planned to be run as third-party jobs to get some upgrade
coverage - I'm not sure if there is any scope for reuse here, or if it will
be easier to just wire in the upgrade via our current scripts (obviously
some form of reuse would be good if possible).

> Please give some feedback if you are interested by this work and I
> will spend some time during the next weeks on $topic.
> 
> Note: please also look my thread about undercloud upgrade job, I need
> your feedback too.

My only question about undercloud upgrades is whether we might combine the
overcloud upgrade job with this, e.g upgrade undercloud, then updgrade
overcloud.  Probably the blocker here will be the gate timeout I guess,
even if we're using pre-cached images etc.

Thanks for looking into this!

Steve