Open Stack

No, this is a wrong road to go.

What if in Fuel 10 we drop v1 plugins support? What should we do?
Remove v1 example from source tree? That doesn't seem good to me.

Example plugins are only examples. The list of supported releases must
be maintained on system test side, and system tests must inject that
information into plugin's metadata.yaml and test it.

Again, I don't say we shouldn't test plugins. I say, tests should be
responsible for preparing plugins. I can say even more: tests should
not rely on what is produced by plugins, since it's something that
could be changed and tests start failing.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Swann Croiset <scroiset at mirantis.com> wrote:
> IMHO it is important to keep plugin examples and keep testing them, very
> valuable for plugin developers.
>
> For example, I've encountered [0] the case where "plugin as role" feature
> wasn't easily testable with fuel-qa because not compliant with the last
> plugin data structure,
> and more recently we've spotted a regression [1] with "vip-reservation"
> feature introduced by a change in nailgun.
> These kind of issues are time consuming for plugin developers and can/must
> be avoided by testing them.
>
> I don't even understand why the question is raised while fuel plugins are
> supposed to be supported and more and more used [3], even by murano [4] ...
>
> [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1543962
> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1551320
> [3]
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-February/085636.html
> [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/286310/
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Matthew Mosesohn <mmosesohn at mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Fuelers,
>>
>> I would like to bring your attention a dilemma we have here. It seems
>> that there is a dispute as to whether we should maintain the releases
>> list for example plugins[0]. In this case, this is for adding version
>> 9.0 to the list.
>>
>> Right now, we run a swarm test that tries to install the example
>> plugin and do a deployment, but it's failing only for this reason. I
>> should add that this is the only automated daily test that will verify
>> that our plugin framework actually works. During the Mitaka
>> development  cycle, we already had an extended period where plugins
>> were broken[1]. Removing this test (or leaving it permanently red,
>> which is effectively the same), would raise the risk to any member of
>> the Fuel community who depends on plugins actually working.
>>
>> The other impact of abandoning maintenance of example plugins is that
>> it means that a given interested Fuel Plugin developer would not be
>> able to easily get started with plugin development. It might not be
>> inherently obvious to add the current Fuel release to the
>> metadata.yaml file and it would likely discourage such a user. In this
>> case, I would propose that we remove example plugins from fuel-plugins
>> GIT repo if they are not maintained. Non-functioning code is worse
>> than deleted code in my opinion.
>>
>> Please share your opinions and let's decide which way to go with this
>> bug[2]
>>
>> [0] https://github.com/openstack/fuel-plugins/tree/master/examples
>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1544505
>> [2] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1548340
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Matthew Mosesohn
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>