[openstack-dev] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud

Derek Higgins derekh at redhat.com
Thu Feb 1 16:05:34 UTC 2018


On 1 February 2018 at 15:36, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Derek Higgins <derekh at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>    I've been working on a set of patches as a WIP to test ironic in the
>> overcloud[1], the approach I've started with is to add ironic into the
>> overcloud controller in scenario004. Also to run a script on the controller
>> (as a NodeExtraConfigPost) that sets up a VM with vbmc that can then be
>> controlled by ironic. The WIP currently replaces the current tempest tests
>> with some commands to sanity test the setup. This essentially works but
>> things need to be cleaned up a bit so I've a few questions
>>
>> o Is scenario004 the correct choice?
>>
>
> Because we might increase the timeout risk on scenario004, I would
> recommend to create a new dedicated scenario that would deploy a very basic
> overcloud with just ironic + dependencies (keystone, glance, neutron, and
> nova?)
>

Ok, I can do this



>
>
>>
>> o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the
>> networking stuff is different?
>>
>
> I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset, see
> existing files for examples.
>
Do you mean that we should use existing tests somewhere or create new ones?



>
>
>>
>> o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best
>> way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't
>> think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it?
>>
>
> What kind of thing do you want to run exactly?
>
The contents to this file will give you an idea, somewhere I need to setup
a node that ironic will control with ipmi
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/19/ci/common/vbmc_setup.yaml


> I'll let the CI squad replies as well but I think we need a new scenario,
> that we would only run when touching ironic files in tripleo. Using
> scenario004 really increase the risk of timeout and we don't want it.
>
Ok




>
> Thanks for this work!
> --
> Emilien Macchi
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20180201/8626d7ab/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list