[Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] Something other than NOOP in our jenkins tests

Kris G. Lindgren klindgren at godaddy.com
Tue Sep 29 20:29:39 UTC 2015

If we are going to be stringent on formatting – I would also like to see us be relatively consistent on arguments/env variables that are needed to make a script run.  Some pull in ENV vars, some source a rc file, some just say already source your rc file to start with, others accept command options.  It would be nice if we had a set of curated scripts that all worked in a similar fashion.

Also, to Joe's point. It would be nice if we had two place for scripts.  A "dumping ground" that people could share what they had.  And a curated one, where everything within the curated repo follows a standard set of conventions/guidelines.

Kris Lindgren
Senior Linux Systems Engineer

From: Joe Topjian
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 1:43 PM
To: JJ Asghar
Cc: "openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org>"
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] Something other than NOOP in our jenkins tests

So this will require bash scripts to adhere to bashate before being accepted? Is it possible to have the check as non-voting? Does this open the door to having other file types be checked?

IMHO, it's more important for the OSOps project to foster collaboration and contributions rather than worry about an accepted style.

As an example, yesterday's commits used hard-tabs:


I think we're going to see a lot of variation of styles coming in.

I don't want to come off as sounding ignorant or disrespectful to other projects that have guidelines in place -- I fully understand and respect those decisions.


On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM, JJ Asghar <jj at chef.io<mailto:jj at chef.io>> wrote:
Awesome! That works!

Best Regards,
JJ Asghar
c: 512.619.0722<tel:512.619.0722> t: @jjasghar irc: j^2

On 9/29/15 1:27 PM, Christian Berendt wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 07:45 PM, JJ Asghar wrote:
>> So this popped up today[1]. This seems like something that should be
>> leveraged in our gates/validations?
> I prepared review requests to enable checks on the gates for
> * osops-tools-monitoring: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/
> * osops-tools-generic: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/
> Christian.

OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20150929/7c241bfd/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list