[Openstack] Jenkins vs SmokeStack tests & Gerrit merge blockers

Rafael Durán Castañeda rafadurancastaneda at gmail.com
Fri Jun 29 07:39:34 UTC 2012


On 06/28/2012 11:58 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
> On 06/28/2012 01:49 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Monty Taylor" <mordred at inaugust.com> To:
>>> openstack at lists.launchpad.net Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012
>>> 11:13:28 AM Subject: Re: [Openstack] Jenkins vs SmokeStack tests &
>>> Gerrit merge blockers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/28/2012 07:32 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>> Today we face a situation where Nova GIT master fails to pass
>>>> all the libvirt test cases. This regression was accidentally
>>>> introduced by the following changeset
>>>>
>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8778/
>>>>
>>>> If you look at the history of that, the first SmokeStack test
>>>> run fails with some (presumably) transient errors, and added
>>>> negative karma to the change against patchset 2. If it were not
>>>> for this transient failure, it should have shown the regression
>>>> in the libvirt test case. The libvirt test case in question was
>>>> one that is skipped, unless libvirt is actually present on the
>>>> host running the tests. SmokeStack had made sure the tests would
>>>> run on such a host.
>>>>
>>>> There were then further patchsets uploaded, and patchset 4 was
>>>> approved for merge. Jenkins ran its gate jobs and these all
>>>> passed successfully. I am told that Jenkins will actually run
>>>> the unittests that are included in Nova, so I would have expected
>>>> it to see the flawed libvirt test case, but it didn't. I presume
>>>> therefore, that Jenkins is not running on a libvirt enabled
>>>> host.
>>> Kind of - it's sadly more complex than that ...
>>>
>>>> The end result was that the broken changeset was merged to
>>>> master, which in turns means any other developers submitting
>>>> changes touching the libvirt area will get broken tests reported
>>>> that were not actually their own fault.
>>>>
>>>> This leaves me with the following questions...
>>>>
>>>> 1. Why was the recorded failure from SmokeStack not considered to
>>>> be a blocker for the merge of the commit by Gerrit or Jenkins or
>>>> any of the reviewers ?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Why did SmokeStack not get re-triggered for the later patch
>>>> set revisions, before it was merged ?
>>> The answer to 1 and 2 is largely the same - SmokeStack is a
>>> community contributed resources and is not managed by the CI team.
>>> Dan Prince does a great job with it, but it's not a resource that
>>> we have the ability to fix should it start messing up, so we have
>>> not granted it the permissions to file blocking votes.
>> I would add that if anyone else is interested in collaborating on
>> making SmokeStack better I'm more than happy to give access. Its all
>> open source and has been since Cactus.
>>
>> As is now SmokeStack can can cast a -1 vote and hopefully this is
>> proving to be useful. I'm open to suggestions.
> I think it's stellar!
>
>>> The tests that smokestack runs could all be written such that they
>>> are run by jenkins.
>> I actually put in quite a bit of work to maintain an openstack_vpc
>> job on Jenkins post-Cactus. When we talked about gating on this job
>> at the Diablo conference the idea didn't seem to get very far... I
>> kind of saw that as the end of the line for maintaining an
>> openstack_vpc job and eventually it went away. Not sure who deleted
>> it, but anyway.
>>
>> The way I see it there is value in both testing systems. Rather than
>> complaining about why one system exists and/or doesn't port its tests
>> to the other.... why don't we build on each others strengths. Seeing
>> a green "verified +1" from both Jenkins and SmokeStack on a review
>> should be very encouraging... and if one of the two systems fails it
>> might require further investigation.
> I completely agree with that. I'm still hoping we'll see more systems
> from more people so that the set of combinations get larger.
>
> I think also there's clearly value in running tests, like how SmokeStack
> is doing right now, that aren't necessarily part of the gate, but which
> pro-actively provide useful information to the reviewers.
>
>>> The repos that run the jenkins tests are all in git and managed by
>>> openstack's gerrit. If there are testing profiles that it runs that
>>> we as a community value and want to see part of the gate, anyone is
>>> welcome to port them.
>>>
>>>> 3. Why did Jenkins not ensure that the tests were run on a
>>>> libvirt enabled host ?
>>> This is a different, and slightly more complex. We run tests in
>>> virtualenvs so that the process used to test the code can be
>>> consistently duplicated by all of the developers in the project.
>>> This is the reason that we no longer do ubuntu package creation as
>>> part of the gate - turns out that's really hard for a developer
>>> running on OSX to do locally on their laptop - and if Jenkins
>>> reports an blocking error in a patch, we want a developer to be
>>> able to reproduce the problem locally so that they can have a
>>> chance at fixing it.
>> The ability for developers to test things locally is very important.
>> For that matter SmokeStack all started with a project called
>> openstack_vpc, a project to spin up groups of cloud servers installed
>> with the latest OpenStack code. A developer can use a project like
>> openstack_vpc to spin up a set of servers in the cloud which builds
>> and installs custom built packages for a set of Git URLs. So
>> essentially the underpinnings of SmokeStack *can* all be done from a
>> local machine just like they run from the UI.
>>
>> There is also value in testing things differently in ways which may
>> not be easy for all developers to reproduce. Take XenServer for
>> example... not every developer has access to a machine which can spin
>> up a mini XenServer cloud. Is there value in running upstream tests
>> on XenServer? I think so...
>>
>> What about running OpenStack with PostgreSQL and MySQL, Rabbit and
>> Qpid? What I'm trying to do with SmokeStack is add value to our
>> testing matrix so that some of the things we aren't automatically
>> testing elsewhere get some coverage.
> ++
>
>> Reproducability is important... but the way I see it if everyone
>> always ran tests with exactly the same flags, or in the same
>> environments we might not find some things.
>>
>> And where a developer can't reproduce something locally what I've
>> done is give them direct access to a box running a SmokeStack job so
>> they can troubleshoot it directly.
> Yup. We've done this with devstack tests in jenkins too. Super helpful
> for some of those weird times...
>
>
>>> Problem arise in paradise though. libvirt being one of them. It's
>>> not possible to install libvirt into a virtualenv, because it's a
>>> swig-based module built as part of the libvirt source itself. One
>>> of the solutions to this is to allow the testing virtual
>>> environments to use packages installed at the system level. We
>>> suggested this a little while ago, but this was rejected by the
>>> nova team who valued the benefit of having a restricted test run so
>>> that we know we've got all of the depends properly specified.
>>>
>>> To that end, after chatting with Brian Waldon, I put this up as a
>>> possible next try:
>>>
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8949/
>>>
>>> Which adds an additional testing environment that has system
>>> software enabled and also installs additional "optional" things.
>>> With that environment, we should be able to run a jenkins gate that
>>> tests things with full libvirt, and also tests the mysql upgrade
>>> paths, without screwing our fine friends who run OSX.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally though - we're at a point of trying to have our cake
>>> and eat it too. Either we want comprehensive testing of all of the
>>> unit tests, or we want to be careful about not making the test
>>> environment to hard for a developer to exactly mimic.
>>>
>>> I'm obviously on the side of having us have gating tests that some
>>> devs might not be able to do on their laptops - such as  running
>>> the libvirt tests properly. We're working on cloud software - worst
>>> case scenario if there's an intractable problem, as dev can always
>>> spin up an ubuntu image somewhere.
>>>
>>>> Obviously this was all made worse by the transient problems
>>>> we've had with the tests suite infrastructure these past 2 days,
>>>> but regardless it seems like we have a gap in our merge approval
>>>> procedures here.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, either SmokeStack needs to be made compulsory, or Jenkins
>>>> needs to ensure tests are run on suitable hosts like SmokeStack
>>>> does, or both.
>>> The second is much more possible and as I've pointed out is in work
>>> - but I do think we should develop a clear sense that it's
>>> important to us that we run these things properly even if it means
>>> direct local developer reproducibility is impacted.
>>>
>>> Thanks! Monty
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Mailing list:
>>> https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to     :
>>> openstack at lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe :
>>> https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help   :
>>> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Actually you can install non setuptools/distutils python packages into 
virtualenv if you can compile it under custom Python, that setup would 
be too complicated, probably not very useful and of course it wouldn't 
help on other stuff like MySQL,  but I thought it was worth noting. A 
PyQt example:

http://code.google.com/p/rdc-blga/source/browse/pyblga/tools/pyqtenv.sh?name=virtualenv

Just my 2 cents.




More information about the Openstack mailing list