[openstack-dev] [nova] bug triage experimentation

Markus Zoeller mzoeller at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mon Jun 26 15:47:16 UTC 2017

On 26.06.2017 10:49, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> Le 23/06/2017 18:52, Sean Dague a écrit :
>> The Nova bug backlog is just over 800 open bugs, which while
>> historically not terrible, remains too large to be collectively usable
>> to figure out where things stand. We've had a few recent issues where we
>> just happened to discover upgrade bugs filed 4 months ago that needed
>> fixes and backports.
>> Historically we've tried to just solve the bug backlog with volunteers.
>> We've had many a brave person dive into here, and burn out after 4 - 6
>> months. And we're currently without a bug lead. Having done a big giant
>> purge in the past
>> (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/046517.html)
>> I know how daunting this all can be.
>> I don't think that people can currently solve the bug triage problem at
>> the current workload that it creates. We've got to reduce the smart
>> human part of that workload.
> Thanks for sharing ideas, Sean.
>> But, I think that we can also learn some lessons from what active github
>> projects do.
>> #1 Bot away bad states
>> There are known bad states of bugs - In Progress with no open patch,
>> Assigned but not In Progress. We can just bot these away with scripts.
>> Even better would be to react immediately on bugs like those, that helps
>> to train folks how to use our workflow. I've got some starter scripts
>> for this up at - https://github.com/sdague/nova-bug-tools
> Sometimes, I had no idea why but I noticed the Gerrit hook not working
> (ie. amending the Launchpad bug with the Gerrit URL) so some of the bugs
> I was looking for were actively being worked on (and I had the same
> experience myself although my commit msg was pretty correctly marked AFAIR).
> Either way, what you propose sounds reasonable to me. If you care about
> fixing a bug by putting yourself owner of that bug, that also means you
> engage yourself on a resolution sooner than later (even if I do fail
> applying that to myself...).
>> #2 Use tag based workflow
>> One lesson from github projects, is the github tracker has no workflow.
>> Issues are openned or closed. Workflow has to be invented by every team
>> based on a set of tags. Sometimes that's annoying, but often times it's
>> super handy, because it allows the tracker to change workflows and not
>> try to change the meaning of things like "Confirmed vs. Triaged" in your
>> mind.
>> We can probably tag for information we know we need at lot easier. I'm
>> considering something like
>> * needs.system-version
>> * needs.openstack-version
>> * needs.logs
>> * needs.subteam-feedback
>> * has.system-version
>> * has.openstack-version
>> * has.reproduce
>> Some of these a bot can process the text on and tell if that info was
>> provided, and comment how to provide the updated info. Some of this
>> would be human, but with official tags, it would probably help.
> The tags you propose seem to me related to an "Incomplete" vs.
> "Confirmed" state of the bug.
> If I'm not able to triage the bug because I'm missing information like
> the release version or more logs, I put the bug as Incomplete.
> I could add those tags, but I don't see where a programmatical approach
> could help us.
> If I understand correctly, you're rather trying to identify more what's
> missing in the bug report to provide a clear path of resolution, so we
> could mark the bug as Triaged, right? If so, I'd not propose those tags
> for the reason I just said, but rather other tags like (disclaimer, I
> suck at naming things):
>  - rootcause.found
>  - needs.rootcause.analysis
>  - is.regression
>  - reproduced.locally
>> #3 machine assisted functional tagging
>> I'm playing around with some things that might be useful in mapping new
>> bugs into existing functional buckets like: libvirt, volumes, etc. We'll
>> see how useful it ends up being.
> Logs parsing could certainly help. If someone is able to provide a clear
> stacktrace of some root exception, we can get for free the impact
> functional bucket for 80% of cases.
> I'm not fan of identifying a domain by text recognition (like that's not
> because someone tells about libvirt that this is a libvirt bug tho), so
> that's why I'd see more some logs analysis like I mentioned.
>> #4 reporting on smaller slices
>> Build some tooling to report on the status and change over time of bugs
>> under various tags. This will help visualize how we are doing
>> (hopefully) and where the biggest piles of issues are.
>> The intent is the normal unit of interaction would be one of these
>> smaller piles. Be they the 76 libvirt bugs, 61 volumes bugs, or 36
>> vmware bugs. It would also highlight the rates of change in these piles,
>> and what's getting attention and what is not.
> I do wonder if Markus already wrote such reporting tools. AFAIR, he had
> a couple of very interesting reportings (and he also worked hard on the
> bugs taxonomy) so we could potentially leverage those.
> -Sylvain

The things I had/have are:

* a Grafana dashboard:

* a script to collect the metrics and store them in statsd:


* a bunch of "helper scripts" for various use-cases:

* a dashboard which shows the results of some of those scripts:

Most of the time in the past, I asked for logs, versions and
configuration. Tooling for that could save some back-and-forth.

>> This is going to be kind of an ongoing experiment, but as we currently
>> have no one spear heading bug triage, it seemed like a good time to try
>> this out.
>> Comments and other suggestions are welcomed. The tooling will have the
>> nova flow in mind, but I'm trying to make it so it takes a project name
>> as params on all the scripts, so anyone can use it. It's a little hack
>> and slash right now to discover what the right patterns are.
>> 	-Sean
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z)

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list