17:00:55 #startmeeting qa 17:00:56 Meeting started Thu Oct 11 17:00:55 2012 UTC. The chair is jaypipes. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:57 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:58 The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 17:01:40 torandu, davidkranz, donaldngo: hello! 17:01:45 dwalleck: hello! 17:02:00 hello! 17:02:41 so... our gate has been working well it seems... 17:02:51 hi 17:03:05 jeblair set up a nightly job that runs the full suite, IIRC 17:03:19 howdy! 17:03:22 jaypipes: Yes. I was going to push it to all projects but won't get to that until after the summit. 17:03:36 Sorry, was away 17:03:55 no worries 17:04:06 dwalleck: so, see my latest email on the swift stuff? 17:04:06 One concern about running the full gate on all projects is that it will get longer every time a new test is added. 17:04:07 #link https://jenkins.openstack.org/job/periodic-tempest-devstack-vm-cinder/ 17:04:15 jeblair: rock on brother. :) thx! 17:04:43 jaypipes: How latest? If it was less than an hour ago, no 17:05:19 jeblair: What do you think a time limit for the full gate should be? 17:05:34 If it was yesterday, I pushed my changes yesterday afternoon 17:05:46 dwalleck: ah, k. 17:05:55 right after you guys pinged me 17:06:01 dwalleck: yeah, I was out sick yesterday afternoon. so didn't notice it. will get right on it. 17:06:56 jeblair: looks like that periodic job is only running smoke tests in tempest... I think we wanted to run the whole suite? 17:07:20 jaypipes: Yes, and I had suggested running it multiple times in a row. 17:08:02 davidkranz: i don't have good data to say based on patch-throughput or another systemic basis; i'd say the main concern is developer tolerance for feedback delay. for that, maybe an hour? 17:08:31 jeblair: OK, so we are safe for a while. 17:08:37 jaypipes, davidkranz: can you guys hack up that change then? 17:08:41 jeblair: we are well below that... I think it's about 700 seconds now 17:08:49 jeblair: yes 17:09:02 jeblair: I'll submit a patch to the openstack-ci-puppet stuff 17:09:11 jaypipes: great 17:09:12 jeblair: At some point we might want to not run swift tests as a gate on nova checkins for example. 17:09:25 davidkranz: ++ 17:10:14 jaypipes: With the nightly run in place we can adjust the tradeoff between gating and the nightly build as approproate. 17:10:24 yep 17:10:43 For now, our problem is still not enough tempest tests :) 17:10:44 davidkranz: i see the desire, as long as we keep in mind it's an integration test designed to catch errors where projects interact. 17:11:06 jeblair: ++ 17:11:08 jeblair: Right. 17:11:39 other than the swift stuff and a couple smaller reviews to do for dwalleck (compute cleanup) and torandu (floating IP assignment bug), the other review is from Rohit. 17:11:51 we should probably give that a full review ASAP today or tomorrow 17:12:04 'since it's been around for a while and I don't want rohit to get discouraged. 17:12:14 it's tests for the live-migration functionality 17:12:24 which is a big deal and is a good addition IMHO 17:12:26 I thought Rohit's patch was pending his changes still 17:12:39 Same with torandu 17:12:42 jaypipes: I reviewed the live-migration 17:12:55 doink, sorry, it's not rohit. 17:13:00 it's lakat 17:13:09 jeblair: Can you say why https://review.openstack.org/#/c/13101/ is stuck in its current state? 17:13:18 jeblair: That's the live migration. 17:13:40 jeblair: There were several reverify but nothing happend. No dependencies are listed. 17:14:20 davidkranz: it's not in zuul's queue. it may have slipped through a restart 17:14:37 jeblair: Hmm. How do we kick it? 17:14:49 davidkranz: i'm reverifying now, i'll see if it shows up or hits an error 17:14:57 jeblair: thx 17:14:58 jeblair: Great. Thanks. 17:15:31 OK, davidkranz, anything you want to bring up regarding the QA track next week? 17:15:59 jaypipes: Not really. I will be happy if we make progress on configuration testing and bringing qa into the open. 17:16:08 oh, you want "recheck" not "reverify" 17:16:10 jaypipes: THey are related I think. 17:16:14 k 17:16:16 it's running now. 17:16:22 jeblair: ah, thanks. 17:16:32 jeblair: What is the rule for which to use>? 17:16:40 jeblair: reverify vs recheck 17:16:57 davidkranz: re: configuration testing, you are referring to testing different configurations of OpenStack clusters with Tempest? Or something else? 17:16:59 recheck runs the patch-upload tests, reverify runs the merge gate (and tries to merge) 17:17:27 jaypipes: Yes, what you said. THere are a few more details in the session description. 17:17:56 (so reverify won't do anything if the change doesn't have +2 code review and +1 approved votes) 17:18:17 jaypipes: The other thing is that there is no scheduled time for a QA group meeting. We should probably set some unconference time for that. 17:18:21 jeblair: Got it. 17:18:30 davidkranz: ++ 17:19:15 davidkranz: I'd really love to see a dicsussion on using DTest and/or PyVows as well. 17:19:34 davidkranz: ++. I think all the sessions are really going to lead into a much larger discussion "where do we go from here" discussion 17:19:37 jaypipes: I think there is a session that is supposed to include that. 17:20:06 jaypipes: I wouldn't mind talking about PyVows. I should push what I've been tinkering with into my repo so it's actually visible 17:20:24 jaypipes, dwalleck : How about Wednesday after lunch? 17:20:41 sure 17:20:42 It's probably better to meet after the QA sessoins. 17:21:26 We can carve out more time on Thursday dynamically if we need it. 17:21:31 davidkranz: works for me. 17:21:35 either.. 17:22:31 I will post something on the unconference board for Wed after lunch. 17:23:07 davidkranz, dwalleck: Also, one thing that we (AT&T) might be able to show is how we have set up our deployment testing in CI. i.e. Testing Chef cookbooks and automated deployment code in Jenkins. 17:23:23 might be useful to see what we're doing to include that stuff in our testing plans 17:23:34 jaypipes: That would be great. 17:23:58 jaypipes: Is that related or comparable to smokestack in any way? 17:24:02 I know not everyone uses Chef, of course, but the way we're doing stuff is pretty interchangeable with Puppet or Juje 17:24:03 That'd be great to see 17:24:10 davidkranz: not comparable... 17:24:41 davidkranz: it tests/validates the actual Chef cookbooks (ChefSpec) as well as our Cobbler/IPMI autoconfiguration etc 17:24:54 jaypipes: If we got more volunteers for configuration testing is this something they might use? 17:25:01 davidkranz: absolutly. 17:25:06 jaypipes: Cool. 17:25:27 absolutly == Absolutely, Vodka-flavored. 17:25:28 jaypipes: I suggest you say a few words about it at the config testing session as well. 17:25:41 davidkranz: will do! both me and Toanster 17:25:45 oops, torandu 17:26:20 OK, the only other topic I had was how we are currently not handling testing of stable/XXX branches well at all. 17:26:47 and I'm not sure about the priority of maintaining those stable/XXX branches at this point. 17:27:04 jaypipes: Well, we certainly need to maintain stable/folsom. 17:27:23 davidkranz: ++. That would be a good start 17:27:52 I think there is already a daily build for the stable branches whose results are not looked at by any one. 17:28:27 davidkranz, dwalleck: By "we", who do you refer to? :) 17:29:02 davidkranz, dwalleck: My personal focus is on trunk -- I don't imagine I will have much time to focus on differences between stable releases (especially X - 2 and older) 17:29:45 jaypipes: By maintain I meant dealing with any fallout if a checkin to a stable/folsom project branch causes tempest to fail. 17:30:23 jaypipes: I don't think we should be backporting new tests as a main line activity. 17:30:28 davidkranz: k 17:30:31 jaypipes: Whomever thinks its important. I think folks who are trying to stay with stable branches might find it difficult to do so without some type of testing. I also don't know how large of an audience that is 17:30:37 jaypipes: Though others of course are free to do so. 17:30:39 davidkranz: much agreed about not backporting. 17:31:36 jaypipes: So what is the issue, then? 17:32:40 jaypipes: We are gating stable branches on stable tempest, right? 17:32:44 davidkranz: oh, I was just thinking about Armando's recent merge request that we basically said "sorry, we're not really adding anything to stable tempest releases, only fixing things" 17:33:12 jaypipes: OK. 17:33:28 davidkranz: wanted to make sure I wasn't smoking too much Thai stick when I responded that we weren't looking to accept *new* stuff to stable Tempest releases. 17:33:41 jaypipes: In that case I think we need a "stable tempest" "team" like there is for other projects. 17:34:04 davidkranz: agreed, but I don't think I can take part in that team -- if I'm being honest... I just don't have the time. 17:34:18 jaypipes: I think we should allow people to backport tests to stable branches 17:34:33 davidkranz: so perhaps it is worth making that team official at next week's summit and broadcasting the intent to maintain a team for stable releases to the broader community 17:34:35 jaypipes: As long as there is a way we don't have to review all of them. 17:34:50 jaypipes: ++ 17:35:18 k. well, that is all the things I wanted to bring up today... anybody got anything else? 17:35:31 nothing here, just heads down 17:35:40 jaypipes: Not for me. 17:35:44 torandu: ? 17:35:46 anything? 17:36:08 no. i've been following along. all sounds good 17:36:32 To all going to the summit, see you there! 17:36:46 davidkranz: Got to run now... 17:36:54 see ya 17:36:56 later! 17:36:59 #endmeeting