[openstack-dev] [Fuel][Fuel-Library] Fuel CI issues

Vladimir Kuklin vkuklin at mirantis.com
Mon Feb 29 10:19:29 UTC 2016

Hi Ivan

Thanks for bringing this up. Frankly, I think that we hurried a little bit
by making our integration with upstream puppet manifests too continuous. I
would suppose that we used a little bit different technique.

First of all, we need to have a set of stable Fuel commits against which
the changes to upstream manifests should be tested. Could you please
elaborate on whether we are doing this already?

Secondly, we need to have FUEL CI working with a set of stable commits of
puppet openstack manifests which passed those upstream tests as we should
not have too much moving parts or we will get into situation similar to
requirements.txt updates when we have pypi updated with new library, e.g.

In this case, we will be able to do proper testing against frozen code-base
for each piece thus avoiding such issues while retaining fair amount of
integration with upstream puppet manifests for OpenStack.

So what do you think?

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Ivan Berezovskiy <iberezovskiy at mirantis.com
> wrote:

> Hello, Fuelers!
> Yesterday we've faced an issue which came from puppet-neutron
> module: LP #1549934 <https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1549934>. Fix
> was prepared very fast:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/284882/ (thanks Sergey for this).
> So, If CI is red on your patch please re-base it on top of master.
> Anyway, this issue affected a lot of patches and blocked some developers,
> because BVT and neutron_smoke tests was also broken. We need to find
> a way how to minimize risks and affection of such changes on fuel-library.
> We have jobs which monitors upstream patches:
> https://ci.fuel-infra.org/view/puppet-openstack/
> Let's start to monitor those jobs on daily basis. We should have at least 1
> (ideally 2 or more) engineers which are responsible for analysis of those
> CI failures. If patch to puppet module is incorrect - we should review it
> with explanation what is actually wrong. If patch is correct, but breaks
> current Fuel CI, it means that problem is in our side and we should prepare
> fuel-library adapt patch to fix the issue. Ideally, we should have an
> ability
> to test this fuel-library patch together with upstream one e.g. using
> 'Depends on'
> in commit message.
> Thoughts?
> --
> Thanks, Ivan Berezovskiy
> MOS Puppet Team Lead
> at Mirantis <https://www.mirantis.com/>
> slack: iberezovskiy
> skype: bouhforever
> phone: + 7-960-343-42-46
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

Yours Faithfully,
Vladimir Kuklin,
Fuel Library Tech Lead,
Mirantis, Inc.
+7 (495) 640-49-04
+7 (926) 702-39-68
Skype kuklinvv
35bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
Moscow, Russia,
www.mirantis.com <http://www.mirantis.ru/>
vkuklin at mirantis.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160229/740a1e58/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list