Re: [nova] Stance on trivial features for driver configs without integration testing

Clark Boylan cboylan at
Thu Oct 17 19:32:12 UTC 2019

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019, at 9:33 AM, melanie witt wrote:
> On 10/17/19 08:39, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> > This was brought up in the nova meeting today [1] as:
> > 
> > "Do we have a particular stance on features to the libvirt driver for 
> > non-integration tested configurations, e.g. lxc [2] and xen [3], meaning 
> > if they are trivial enough do we just say the driver's quality warning 
> > on startup is sufficient to let them land since these are changes from 
> > casual contributors scratching an itch?"
> > 
> > We agreed to move this to the mailing list.
> > 
> > We don't have tempest jobs for the libvirt+lxc or libvirt+xen 
> > configurations (Citrix used to host 3rd party CI for the latter) and for 
> > the changes referenced they are from part-time contributors, minor and 
> > self-contained, and therefore I wouldn't expect them to build CI jobs 
> > for those configurations or stand up 3rd party CI.
> > 
> > There are cases in the past where we've held features out due to lack of 
> > CI, e.g. live migration support in the vSphere driver. That's quite a 
> > bit different in my opinion because (1) it's a much more complicated 
> > feature, (2) there already was 3rd party CI for the vSphere driver and 
> > (3) there is a big rich corporation maintaining the driver so I figured 
> > they could pony up the resources to make that testing happen (and it 
> > eventually did).
> > 
> > For these other small changes are we OK with letting them in knowing 
> > that the libvirt driver already logs a quality warning on startup for 
> > these configs [4]? In this case I am but wanted to ask and I don't think 
> > this sets a precedent as not all changes are equal.
> I'm OK with this and I think the quality warning sets an appropriate 
> expectation. As I mentioned in the meeting, my opinion is I think 
> sufficiently trivial changes are fine on this basis. I also wouldn't try 
> to set a hard precedent because each thing needs review on whether it's 
> "trivial", but I support a spirit of accepting simple changes without 
> requiring full blown 3rd party CI, given the quality warnings we have 
> for the configs mentioned.

I think it is important to clarify that for both LXC and Xen testing should be able to happen in the upstream CI system. Both are open source projects and the major gotcha to testing Xen in the past (reboots) should be possible with Zuulv3. Typically we should fall back on third party CI when there are special hardware requirements or licenses that prevent us from running software freely on our existing CI system. For open source tools like LXC and Xen I don't believe this is a problem.

> -melanie
> > [1] 
> > 
> > 
> > [2]
> > [3]
> > [4] 
> > 

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list