Open Stack

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Steven Hardy <shardy at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Justin Kilpatrick wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Ben Nemec <openstack at nemebean.com>
> wrote:
> > > Tempest isn't really either of those things.  According to another
> message
> > > in this thread it takes around 15 minutes to run just the smoke tests.
> > > That's unacceptable for a lot of our CI jobs.
> >
>

I rather spend 15 minutes running tempest than add a regression or a new
bug, which already happen in the past.


> > Ben, is the issue merely the time it takes? Is it the affect that time
> > taken has on hardware availability?
>
> It's both, but the main constraint is the infra job timeout, which is about
> 2.5hrs - if you look at our current jobs many regularly get close to (and
> sometimes exceed this), so we just don't have the time budget available to
> run exhasutive tests every commit.
>

We have green light from infra to increase the job timeout to 5 hours, we
do that in our periodic full tempest job.


>
> > Should we focus on how much testing we can get into N time period?
> > Then how do we decide an optimal N
> > for our constraints?
>
> Well yeah, but that's pretty much how/why we ended up with pingtest, it's
> simple, fast, and provides an efficient way to do smoke tests, e.g creating
> just one heat resource is enough to prove multiple OpenStack services are
> running, as well as the DB/RPC etc etc.
>
> > I've been working on a full up functional test for OpenStack CI builds
> > for a long time now, it works but takes
> > more than 10 hours. IF you're interested in results kick through to
> > Kibana here [0]. Let me know off list if you
> > have any issues, the presentation of this data is all experimental still.
>
> This kind of thing is great, and I'd support more exhaustive testing via
> periodic jobs etc, but the reality is we need to focus on "bang for buck"
> e.g the deepest possible coverage in the most minimal amount of time for
> our per-commit tests - we rely on the project gates to provide a full API
> surface test, and we need to focus on more basic things like "did the
> service
> start", and "is the API accessible".  Simple crud operations on a subset of
> the API's is totally fine for this IMO, whether via pingtest or some other
> means.
>
>
Right now we do have a periodic job running full tempest, with a few skips,
and because of the lack of tempest tests in the patches, it's being pretty
hard to keep it stable enough to have a 100% pass, and of course, also the
installation very often fails (like in the last five days).
For example, [1] is the latest run we have in periodic job that we get
results from tempest, and we have 114 failures that was caused by some new
code/change, and I have no idea which one was, just looking at the
failures, I can notice that smoke tests plus minimum basic scenario tests
would catch these failures and the developer could fix it and make me happy
:)
Now I have to spend several hours installing and debugging each one of
those tests to identify where/why it fails.
Before this run, we got 100% pass, but unfortunately I don't have the
results anymore, it was removed already from logs.openstack.org



> Steve
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

[1]
http://logs.openstack.org/periodic/periodic-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-nonha-tempest-oooq/0072651/logs/oooq/stackviz/#/stdin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170418/8a559a54/attachment.html>