Using travis yaml files to specify dependencies and tests
--oLBj+sq0vYjzfsbl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everyone! After talking a bit with some of you, I think that we can start planning a common build and dependency declaration for tests for the ovirt products, to improve and automate most of the ci process and maintenance. Current status: =3D=3D Dependencies Right now we have 4 types of dependencies: * test dependencies * tarball/srcrpm build dependencies * rpm build dependencies * installation dependencies The last two are managed from the spec files through rpm/yum dependency systems. But the first ones are managed manually on the jobs on jenkins or puppet manifests. What separates it from the code that actually requires them and adds an extra layer of maintenance and synchronization between the code, the jenkins jobs and the puppet repository. =3D=3D Builds We started using autotools to build most of the projects, but it's not a global methodology and even being used on some projects, you need to tune the run for each of them, specifying different variables and running some side scripts. =3D=3D Tests Some projects use make check to run some of the tests, some tests are totally outside the code and run only in jenkins jobs. Some possible improvements: =3D=3D Tests/builds Using shell scripts: We talked before in another thread to create some generic script to build the artifacts for the product and to run the tests, namely we talked about having 3 executables (bash scripts probably) at the root of each project, that should not require any parameters: ./build-artifacts This should generate any artifacts to be archives (isos, rpms, debs, tarballs, ...) and leave them at ./exported-artifacts/ directory, for the build system to collect, removing any previous artifacts if needed. ./check_patch Runs all the tests required for any new patchset in gerrit, for non-merged changes, should be fast to run to get feedback easily ./check_merge Runs all the tests for any change that is going to be merged (right now we are not using gates, so it actually after merge, but the idea is to use this as gate for any merge to the repo). This can be more resource hungry than check_path. That way it will let you use easily any framework that you want to use for your project, but still let it be easy to maintain in the global ci/build system (you can use pip, tox, maven, gradle, autotools, make, rake, ...). This will not allow at first running tests in parallel in jenkins, but we can in the future add that possibility (for example, allowing the user to define more than one check script, like check_patch.mytest1 and check_patch.mytest2 and make jenkins run them in parallel). I started a POC of this process here [1] Using travis yaml files: Using a travis compliant yaml file [2]. That will be less flexible than the above solution and will not allow you to run tests in parallel, though it will let you use travis at any point to offload our ci if needed. =3D=3D Dependencies Using plain text files: Similar to the above scripts solution, I though of adding an extra file, with the same name, to declare the dependencies to run that script. Adding a suffix in case of different requirements for different distros (matching facter fact strings), for example: ./build-artifacts.req Main requirements file, used if no more specific one found. With a newline separated list of packages to install on the environment (jenkins will take care of which package manager to use). ./build-artifacts.req.fc20 Specific requirements for fc20 environment, replaces the general one if present. And the same for the other scripts (check_patch and check_merge). Using travis yaml file: Using a travis compliant yaml file with some extensions to declare the different dependencies for each type and os/distro. That will allow you to have only one extra file in your repo, though you'd have to duplicate some of the requirements as travis only has ubuntu and forces you to run scripts to install dependencies. What do you think? Do you have any better idea? ps. About using an external repository to store the scripts/requirements for the code. The issue with this is that it forces you to bind a code change in the code repo, to a script/dependency change in the scripts repo, and that adds a lot of extra maintenance and source of issues and failures. If you know a way of doing it like that without all the fuss, I'd love to hear it. For example, imagine that you have vdsm and the dependencies are in another repo, now you send a patch to vdsm that requires you to run a specific pep8 version to pass the patch tests, so you have to change the script repo to add that dependency, but doing that you will brake all the other patches tests because they require the older pep8 version, so you have to somehow specify in the vdsm patch that you require a specific commit from the scripts repo to be tested with... Having both in the same repo, allows you to do the code change and the dependency/script change in the same patchset, and test it right away with the correct scripts/deps. It also binds together code and tests to some point, what is nice to have in a product view, because you know for each version which tests it passed and have a better idea of the possible failures for that version. [1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/admin/projects/repoman [2] http://docs.travis-ci.com/ --=20 David Caro Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Tel.: +420 532 294 605 Email: dcaro@redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605 --oLBj+sq0vYjzfsbl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUvnkrAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnD2f0H/1t40fR3h4Tlae891vmiPyYv zxfTY6SlW0CJkSEis2ED2KZTkQZwQ6clfK+aRdGzSXL0mtUL9wr3Kk1/+i4tMQD/ 5gqjP9Hc7HoMzDDvIRIvBdBm3fDgnvChkqr8xbRG1l4LIDGgDH2AE9uhkEClHpqV CdhwrYGAU9DCBcB1kINZqKPn7q42nR1fkvl2ItIlJ6eRpY51bf6PNIW2INNvVB7V 3LMkO9E2Y1uen61HZ5A7MvQ58vaJJjxM4seCrcdkbAEtHxbtPxVAEG7mXlpZBcH6 EbT1KfLAyghRcpdGxa5PsAQRHcrTre+sKhsi17fI8JZBhJVmAfdbHd2iEhMlqZ8= =LXWV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oLBj+sq0vYjzfsbl--
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Caro" <dcaroest@redhat.com> To: infra@ovirt.org Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:50:03 PM Subject: Using travis yaml files to specify dependencies and tests
Hi everyone!
After talking a bit with some of you, I think that we can start planning a common build and dependency declaration for tests for the ovirt products, to improve and automate most of the ci process and maintenance.
Current status:
== Dependencies
Right now we have 4 types of dependencies:
* test dependencies * tarball/srcrpm build dependencies * rpm build dependencies * installation dependencies
The last two are managed from the spec files through rpm/yum dependency systems. But the first ones are managed manually on the jobs on jenkins or puppet manifests. What separates it from the code that actually requires them and adds an extra layer of maintenance and synchronization between the code, the jenkins jobs and the puppet repository.
== Builds
We started using autotools to build most of the projects, but it's not a global methodology and even being used on some projects, you need to tune the run for each of them, specifying different variables and running some side scripts.
== Tests
Some projects use make check to run some of the tests, some tests are totally outside the code and run only in jenkins jobs.
Some possible improvements:
== Tests/builds
Using shell scripts: We talked before in another thread to create some generic script to build the artifacts for the product and to run the tests, namely we talked about having 3 executables (bash scripts probably) at the root of each project, that should not require any parameters:
./build-artifacts This should generate any artifacts to be archives (isos, rpms, debs, tarballs, ...) and leave them at ./exported-artifacts/ directory, for the build system to collect, removing any previous artifacts if needed.
./check_patch Runs all the tests required for any new patchset in gerrit, for non-merged changes, should be fast to run to get feedback easily
./check_merge Runs all the tests for any change that is going to be merged (right now we are not using gates, so it actually after merge, but the idea is to use this as gate for any merge to the repo). This can be more resource hungry than check_path.
That way it will let you use easily any framework that you want to use for your project, but still let it be easy to maintain in the global ci/build system (you can use pip, tox, maven, gradle, autotools, make, rake, ...). This will not allow at first running tests in parallel in jenkins, but we can in the future add that possibility (for example, allowing the user to define more than one check script, like check_patch.mytest1 and check_patch.mytest2 and make jenkins run them in parallel). I started a POC of this process here [1]
Using travis yaml files: Using a travis compliant yaml file [2]. That will be less flexible than the above solution and will not allow you to run tests in parallel, though it will let you use travis at any point to offload our ci if needed.
== Dependencies
Using plain text files: Similar to the above scripts solution, I though of adding an extra file, with the same name, to declare the dependencies to run that script. Adding a suffix in case of different requirements for different distros (matching facter fact strings), for example:
./build-artifacts.req Main requirements file, used if no more specific one found. With a newline separated list of packages to install on the environment (jenkins will take care of which package manager to use).
./build-artifacts.req.fc20 Specific requirements for fc20 environment, replaces the general one if present.
And the same for the other scripts (check_patch and check_merge).
Using travis yaml file: Using a travis compliant yaml file with some extensions to declare the different dependencies for each type and os/distro. That will allow you to have only one extra file in your repo, though you'd have to duplicate some of the requirements as travis only has ubuntu and forces you to run scripts to install dependencies.
What do you think? Do you have any better idea?
without referring to the actual suggestions, i think this is big enough to track via a wiki or etherpad so data won't get lots in the thread.
ps. About using an external repository to store the scripts/requirements for the code. The issue with this is that it forces you to bind a code change in the code repo, to a script/dependency change in the scripts repo, and that adds a lot of extra maintenance and source of issues and failures. If you know a way of doing it like that without all the fuss, I'd love to hear it.
For example, imagine that you have vdsm and the dependencies are in another repo, now you send a patch to vdsm that requires you to run a specific pep8 version to pass the patch tests, so you have to change the script repo to add that dependency, but doing that you will brake all the other patches tests because they require the older pep8 version, so you have to somehow specify in the vdsm patch that you require a specific commit from the scripts repo to be tested with...
Having both in the same repo, allows you to do the code change and the dependency/script change in the same patchset, and test it right away with the correct scripts/deps.
It also binds together code and tests to some point, what is nice to have in a product view, because you know for each version which tests it passed and have a better idea of the possible failures for that version.
[1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/admin/projects/repoman [2] http://docs.travis-ci.com/
-- David Caro
Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605 Email: dcaro@redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
--kunpHVz1op/+13PW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Opened an etherpad for further discussion: http://etherpad.ovirt.org/p/build-and-test-standards On 01/21, Eyal Edri wrote:
=20 =20 ----- Original Message -----
From: "David Caro" <dcaroest@redhat.com> To: infra@ovirt.org Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:50:03 PM Subject: Using travis yaml files to specify dependencies and tests =20 =20 Hi everyone! =20 After talking a bit with some of you, I think that we can start planning a common build and dependency declaration for tests for the ovirt products, to improve and automate most of the ci process and maintenance. =20 =20 =20 Current status: =20 =3D=3D Dependencies =20 Right now we have 4 types of dependencies: =20 * test dependencies * tarball/srcrpm build dependencies * rpm build dependencies * installation dependencies =20 The last two are managed from the spec files through rpm/yum dependency systems. But the first ones are managed manually on the jobs on jenkins or puppet manifests. What separates it from the code that actually requires them and adds an extra layer of maintenance and synchronization between the code, the jenkins jobs and the puppet repository. =20 =20 =3D=3D Builds =20 We started using autotools to build most of the projects, but it's not a global methodology and even being used on some projects, you need to tune the run for each of them, specifying different variables and running some side scripts. =20 =20 =3D=3D Tests =20 Some projects use make check to run some of the tests, some tests are totally outside the code and run only in jenkins jobs. =20 =20 =20 Some possible improvements: =20 =3D=3D Tests/builds =20 Using shell scripts: We talked before in another thread to create some generic script to build the artifacts for the product and to run the tests, namely we talked about having 3 executables (bash scripts probably) at the root of each project, that should not require any parameters: =20 ./build-artifacts This should generate any artifacts to be archives (isos, rpms, debs, tarballs, ...) and leave them at ./exported-artifacts/ directory, for the build system to collect, removing any previous artifacts if needed. =20 ./check_patch Runs all the tests required for any new patchset in gerrit, for non-merged changes, should be fast to run to get feedback easily =20 ./check_merge Runs all the tests for any change that is going to be merged (right now we are not using gates, so it actually after merge, but the idea is to use this as gate for any merge to the repo). This can be more resource hungry than check_path. =20 That way it will let you use easily any framework that you want to use for your project, but still let it be easy to maintain in the global ci/build system (you can use pip, tox, maven, gradle, autotools, make, rake, ...). This will not allow at first running tests in parallel in jenkins, but we can in the future add that possibility (for example, allowing the user to define more than one check script, like check_patch.mytest1 and check_patch.mytest2 and make jenkins run them in parallel). I started a POC of this process here [1] =20 Using travis yaml files: Using a travis compliant yaml file [2]. That will be less flexible than the above solution and will not allow you to run tests in parallel, though it will let you use travis at any point to offload our ci if needed. =20 =20 =3D=3D Dependencies =20 Using plain text files: Similar to the above scripts solution, I though of adding an extra file, with the same name, to declare the dependencies to run that script. Adding a suffix in case of different requirements for different distros (matching facter fact strings), for example: =20 ./build-artifacts.req Main requirements file, used if no more specific one found. With a newline separated list of packages to install on the environment (jenkins will take care of which package manager to use). =20 ./build-artifacts.req.fc20 Specific requirements for fc20 environment, replaces the general one if present. =20 And the same for the other scripts (check_patch and check_merge). =20 Using travis yaml file: Using a travis compliant yaml file with some extensions to declare the different dependencies for each type and os/distro. That will allow you to have only one extra file in your repo, though you'd have to duplicate some of the requirements as travis only has ubuntu and forces you to run scripts to install dependencies. =20 =20 What do you think? Do you have any better idea? =20 without referring to the actual suggestions, i think this is big enough t= o track via a wiki or etherpad so data won't get lots in the thread. =20 =20 =20 ps. About using an external repository to store the scripts/requirements for the code. The issue with this is that it forces you to bind a code change in the code repo, to a script/dependency change in the scripts repo, and that adds a lot of extra maintenance and source of issues and failures. If you know a way of doing it like that without all the fuss, I'd love to hear it. =20 For example, imagine that you have vdsm and the dependencies are in another repo, now you send a patch to vdsm that requires you to run a specific pep8 version to pass the patch tests, so you have to change the script repo to add that dependency, but doing that you will brake all the other patches tests because they require the older pep8 version, so you have to somehow specify in the vdsm patch that you require a specific commit from the scripts repo to be tested with... =20 Having both in the same repo, allows you to do the code change and the dependency/script change in the same patchset, and test it right away with the correct scripts/deps. =20 It also binds together code and tests to some point, what is nice to have in a product view, because you know for each version which tests it passed and have a better idea of the possible failures for that version. =20 =20 [1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/admin/projects/repoman [2] http://docs.travis-ci.com/ =20 -- David Caro =20 Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D =20 Tel.: +420 532 294 605 Email: dcaro@redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605 =20 _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra =20
--=20 David Caro Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Tel.: +420 532 294 605 Email: dcaro@redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605 --kunpHVz1op/+13PW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUwQ7MAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDE1kH/j+RfgEiMZXVABwpachCvN0n zGBVNg6cs+apqQI3hCs2R7JcMSXrP14gGoMXg4Jj9SnI0Z/AyX1ml12YjqHbRwNn kZYrWabBAE32CbqWh0lkUrCvmT4BykzXO0SX/6n+wX/oyMqQshzVVqAJwexEljw2 H5lKGrMQ0Ebhu/c7Ax3HXQMLzywRoc/98JtemfCKddbLXS6M9ALX9npOu0xHEaeE CceqB4L4ZToK+0DJV6/jGM4yxshQPJb4QmgqTbnEL0e7jNVahHe43XHSuv9ctSUP vuPUNswJauLmHQwHjO8bH+e7p1mAXyjieJ4F9d2q48pK4gni5TUWoanZJSYbVus= =nS2L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kunpHVz1op/+13PW--
Il 20/01/2015 16:50, David Caro ha scritto:
Hi everyone!
After talking a bit with some of you, I think that we can start planning a common build and dependency declaration for tests for the ovirt products, to improve and automate most of the ci process and maintenance.
Current status:
== Dependencies
Right now we have 4 types of dependencies:
* test dependencies * tarball/srcrpm build dependencies * rpm build dependencies * installation dependencies
The last two are managed from the spec files through rpm/yum dependency systems. But the first ones are managed manually on the jobs on jenkins or puppet manifests. What separates it from the code that actually requires them and adds an extra layer of maintenance and synchronization between the code, the jenkins jobs and the puppet repository.
== Builds
We started using autotools to build most of the projects, but it's not a global methodology and even being used on some projects, you need to tune the run for each of them, specifying different variables and running some side scripts.
== Tests
Some projects use make check to run some of the tests, some tests are totally outside the code and run only in jenkins jobs.
Some possible improvements:
== Tests/builds
Using shell scripts: We talked before in another thread to create some generic script to build the artifacts for the product and to run the tests, namely we talked about having 3 executables (bash scripts probably) at the root of each project, that should not require any parameters:
./build-artifacts This should generate any artifacts to be archives (isos, rpms, debs, tarballs, ...) and leave them at ./exported-artifacts/ directory, for the build system to collect, removing any previous artifacts if needed.
./check_patch Runs all the tests required for any new patchset in gerrit, for non-merged changes, should be fast to run to get feedback easily
./check_merge Runs all the tests for any change that is going to be merged (right now we are not using gates, so it actually after merge, but the idea is to use this as gate for any merge to the repo). This can be more resource hungry than check_path.
That way it will let you use easily any framework that you want to use for your project, but still let it be easy to maintain in the global ci/build system (you can use pip, tox, maven, gradle, autotools, make, rake, ...). This will not allow at first running tests in parallel in jenkins, but we can in the future add that possibility (for example, allowing the user to define more than one check script, like check_patch.mytest1 and check_patch.mytest2 and make jenkins run them in parallel). I started a POC of this process here [1]
Using travis yaml files: Using a travis compliant yaml file [2]. That will be less flexible than the above solution and will not allow you to run tests in parallel, though it will let you use travis at any point to offload our ci if needed.
== Dependencies
Using plain text files: Similar to the above scripts solution, I though of adding an extra file, with the same name, to declare the dependencies to run that script. Adding a suffix in case of different requirements for different distros (matching facter fact strings), for example:
./build-artifacts.req Main requirements file, used if no more specific one found. With a newline separated list of packages to install on the environment (jenkins will take care of which package manager to use).
./build-artifacts.req.fc20 Specific requirements for fc20 environment, replaces the general one if present.
And the same for the other scripts (check_patch and check_merge).
Using travis yaml file: Using a travis compliant yaml file with some extensions to declare the different dependencies for each type and os/distro. That will allow you to have only one extra file in your repo, though you'd have to duplicate some of the requirements as travis only has ubuntu and forces you to run scripts to install dependencies.
What do you think? Do you have any better idea?
I would prefer to have above scripts in something like jenkins, automation or build sub-directory. Other than that, no better idea.
ps. About using an external repository to store the scripts/requirements for the code. The issue with this is that it forces you to bind a code change in the code repo, to a script/dependency change in the scripts repo, and that adds a lot of extra maintenance and source of issues and failures. If you know a way of doing it like that without all the fuss, I'd love to hear it.
For example, imagine that you have vdsm and the dependencies are in another repo, now you send a patch to vdsm that requires you to run a specific pep8 version to pass the patch tests, so you have to change the script repo to add that dependency, but doing that you will brake all the other patches tests because they require the older pep8 version, so you have to somehow specify in the vdsm patch that you require a specific commit from the scripts repo to be tested with...
Having both in the same repo, allows you to do the code change and the dependency/script change in the same patchset, and test it right away with the correct scripts/deps.
It also binds together code and tests to some point, what is nice to have in a product view, because you know for each version which tests it passed and have a better idea of the possible failures for that version.
[1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/admin/projects/repoman [2] http://docs.travis-ci.com/
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
--JQ29orswtRjjfiJM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 02/03, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
Il 20/01/2015 16:50, David Caro ha scritto:
=20 Hi everyone! =20 After talking a bit with some of you, I think that we can start planning a common build and dependency declaration for tests for the ovirt products, to improve and automate most of the ci process and maintenance. =20 =20 =20 Current status: =20 =3D=3D Dependencies =20 Right now we have 4 types of dependencies: =20 * test dependencies * tarball/srcrpm build dependencies * rpm build dependencies * installation dependencies =20 The last two are managed from the spec files through rpm/yum dependency systems. But the first ones are managed manually on the jobs on jenkins or puppet manifests. What separates it from the code that actually requires them and adds an extra layer of maintenance and synchronization between the code, the jenkins jobs and the puppet repository. =20 =20 =3D=3D Builds =20 We started using autotools to build most of the projects, but it's not a global methodology and even being used on some projects, you need to tune the run for each of them, specifying different variables and running some side scripts. =20 =20 =3D=3D Tests =20 Some projects use make check to run some of the tests, some tests are totally outside the code and run only in jenkins jobs. =20 =20 =20 Some possible improvements: =20 =3D=3D Tests/builds =20 Using shell scripts: We talked before in another thread to create some generic script to build the artifacts for the product and to run the tests, namely we talked about having 3 executables (bash scripts probably) at the root of each project, that should not require any parameters: =20 ./build-artifacts This should generate any artifacts to be archives (isos, rpms, debs, tarballs, ...) and leave them at ./exported-artifacts/ directory, for the build system to collect, removing any previous artifacts if needed. =20 ./check_patch Runs all the tests required for any new patchset in gerrit, for non-merged changes, should be fast to run to get feedback easily =20 ./check_merge Runs all the tests for any change that is going to be merged (right now we are not using gates, so it actually after merge, but the idea is to use this as gate for any merge to the repo). This can be more resource hungry than check_path. =20 That way it will let you use easily any framework that you want to use for your project, but still let it be easy to maintain in the global ci/build system (you can use pip, tox, maven, gradle, autotools, make, rake, ...). This will not allow at first running tests in parallel in jenkins, but we can in the future add that possibility (for example, allowing the user to define more than one check script, like check_patch.mytest1 and check_patch.mytest2 and make jenkins run them in parallel). I started a POC of this process here [1] =20 Using travis yaml files: Using a travis compliant yaml file [2]. That will be less flexible than the above solution and will not allow you to run tests in parallel, though it will let you use travis at any point to offload our ci if needed. =20 =20 =3D=3D Dependencies =20 Using plain text files: Similar to the above scripts solution, I though of adding an extra file, with the same name, to declare the dependencies to run that script. Adding a suffix in case of different requirements for different distros (matching facter fact strings), for example: =20 ./build-artifacts.req Main requirements file, used if no more specific one found. With a newline separated list of packages to install on the environment (jenkins will take care of which package manager to use). =20 ./build-artifacts.req.fc20 Specific requirements for fc20 environment, replaces the general one if present. =20 And the same for the other scripts (check_patch and check_merge). =20 Using travis yaml file: Using a travis compliant yaml file with some extensions to declare the different dependencies for each type and os/distro. That will allow you to have only one extra file in your repo, though you'd have to duplicate some of the requirements as travis only has ubuntu and forces you to run scripts to install dependencies. =20 =20 What do you think? Do you have any better idea? =20 =20 I would prefer to have above scripts in something like jenkins, automatio= n or build sub-directory. Other than that, no better idea.
As long as all the projects use the same path and name for them, I have no = issue with putting them somewhere else. I don't think jenkins is a good name, but automation is a nice one. build is too common, used by a lot of different tools, better avoid it. So can we agree to use automation directory?
=20 =20
=20 =20 ps. About using an external repository to store the scripts/requirements for the code. The issue with this is that it forces you to bind a code change in the code repo, to a script/dependency change in the scripts repo, and that adds a lot of extra maintenance and source of issues and failures. If you know a way of doing it like that without all the fuss, I'd love to hear it. =20 For example, imagine that you have vdsm and the dependencies are in another repo, now you send a patch to vdsm that requires you to run a specific pep8 version to pass the patch tests, so you have to change the script repo to add that dependency, but doing that you will brake all the other patches tests because they require the older pep8 version, so you have to somehow specify in the vdsm patch that you require a specific commit from the scripts repo to be tested with... =20 Having both in the same repo, allows you to do the code change and the dependency/script change in the same patchset, and test it right away with the correct scripts/deps. =20 It also binds together code and tests to some point, what is nice to have in a product view, because you know for each version which tests it passed and have a better idea of the possible failures for that version. =20 =20 [1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/admin/projects/repoman [2] http://docs.travis-ci.com/ =20 =20 =20 _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra =20 =20 =20 --=20 Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
--=20 David Caro Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Tel.: +420 532 294 605 Email: dcaro@redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605 --JQ29orswtRjjfiJM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU0MdtAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDzKgH/3Ljn6lZj85gvc/eeNuLlmqb AxqjISFWC5geRzbIv29mVTh2E+4NGb/plcpprl/DtznXgMIYtGwdc14DcC/Q7OGF KiajNvUWC9XJccH0i9H52fKQki/NuidnCw1TPJcNMdoLLFKg4RBjUJfXAy7iksfm gWpPhqRBpbGqwZgSq1b1cUJK40OWxpsiJcqJAN1a5/Ik5ql9yOAEfS632hJs8ILe j4THqTFVVPZ2r7YyiyT3i+W7JqoUvK/LCG4StXdyiyf/FXLi9A/uoqMK3lxVPN4T mfAkL8ABFb2KDVmWEQWafWiIO0hzEUxbPq+klIoeyc1t0kJGf6CO2kZ0vvsbfBc= =4yYv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JQ29orswtRjjfiJM--
Il 03/02/2015 14:04, David Caro ha scritto:
On 02/03, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
Il 20/01/2015 16:50, David Caro ha scritto:
Hi everyone!
After talking a bit with some of you, I think that we can start planning a common build and dependency declaration for tests for the ovirt products, to improve and automate most of the ci process and maintenance.
Current status:
== Dependencies
Right now we have 4 types of dependencies:
* test dependencies * tarball/srcrpm build dependencies * rpm build dependencies * installation dependencies
The last two are managed from the spec files through rpm/yum dependency systems. But the first ones are managed manually on the jobs on jenkins or puppet manifests. What separates it from the code that actually requires them and adds an extra layer of maintenance and synchronization between the code, the jenkins jobs and the puppet repository.
== Builds
We started using autotools to build most of the projects, but it's not a global methodology and even being used on some projects, you need to tune the run for each of them, specifying different variables and running some side scripts.
== Tests
Some projects use make check to run some of the tests, some tests are totally outside the code and run only in jenkins jobs.
Some possible improvements:
== Tests/builds
Using shell scripts: We talked before in another thread to create some generic script to build the artifacts for the product and to run the tests, namely we talked about having 3 executables (bash scripts probably) at the root of each project, that should not require any parameters:
./build-artifacts This should generate any artifacts to be archives (isos, rpms, debs, tarballs, ...) and leave them at ./exported-artifacts/ directory, for the build system to collect, removing any previous artifacts if needed.
./check_patch Runs all the tests required for any new patchset in gerrit, for non-merged changes, should be fast to run to get feedback easily
./check_merge Runs all the tests for any change that is going to be merged (right now we are not using gates, so it actually after merge, but the idea is to use this as gate for any merge to the repo). This can be more resource hungry than check_path.
That way it will let you use easily any framework that you want to use for your project, but still let it be easy to maintain in the global ci/build system (you can use pip, tox, maven, gradle, autotools, make, rake, ...). This will not allow at first running tests in parallel in jenkins, but we can in the future add that possibility (for example, allowing the user to define more than one check script, like check_patch.mytest1 and check_patch.mytest2 and make jenkins run them in parallel). I started a POC of this process here [1]
Using travis yaml files: Using a travis compliant yaml file [2]. That will be less flexible than the above solution and will not allow you to run tests in parallel, though it will let you use travis at any point to offload our ci if needed.
== Dependencies
Using plain text files: Similar to the above scripts solution, I though of adding an extra file, with the same name, to declare the dependencies to run that script. Adding a suffix in case of different requirements for different distros (matching facter fact strings), for example:
./build-artifacts.req Main requirements file, used if no more specific one found. With a newline separated list of packages to install on the environment (jenkins will take care of which package manager to use).
./build-artifacts.req.fc20 Specific requirements for fc20 environment, replaces the general one if present.
And the same for the other scripts (check_patch and check_merge).
Using travis yaml file: Using a travis compliant yaml file with some extensions to declare the different dependencies for each type and os/distro. That will allow you to have only one extra file in your repo, though you'd have to duplicate some of the requirements as travis only has ubuntu and forces you to run scripts to install dependencies.
What do you think? Do you have any better idea?
I would prefer to have above scripts in something like jenkins, automation or build sub-directory. Other than that, no better idea.
As long as all the projects use the same path and name for them, I have no issue with putting them somewhere else.
I don't think jenkins is a good name, but automation is a nice one.
build is too common, used by a lot of different tools, better avoid it.
So can we agree to use automation directory?
automation is ok for me.
ps. About using an external repository to store the scripts/requirements for the code. The issue with this is that it forces you to bind a code change in the code repo, to a script/dependency change in the scripts repo, and that adds a lot of extra maintenance and source of issues and failures. If you know a way of doing it like that without all the fuss, I'd love to hear it.
For example, imagine that you have vdsm and the dependencies are in another repo, now you send a patch to vdsm that requires you to run a specific pep8 version to pass the patch tests, so you have to change the script repo to add that dependency, but doing that you will brake all the other patches tests because they require the older pep8 version, so you have to somehow specify in the vdsm patch that you require a specific commit from the scripts repo to be tested with...
Having both in the same repo, allows you to do the code change and the dependency/script change in the same patchset, and test it right away with the correct scripts/deps.
It also binds together code and tests to some point, what is nice to have in a product view, because you know for each version which tests it passed and have a better idea of the possible failures for that version.
[1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/admin/projects/repoman [2] http://docs.travis-ci.com/
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/02/15 14:04, David Caro wrote:
As long as all the projects use the same path and name for them, I have no issue with putting them somewhere else.
I don't think jenkins is a good name, but automation is a nice one.
build is too common, used by a lot of different tools, better avoid it.
So can we agree to use automation directory?
assuming this is about the "bash scripts" I would just like to notice that you should keep them posix compatible so they can be used on different platforms too. Thanks - -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Regards Sven Kieske Systemadministrator Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG Königsberger Straße 6 32339 Espelkamp T: +49-5772-293-100 F: +49-5772-293-333 https://www.mittwald.de Geschäftsführer: Robert Meyer St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhausen Komplementärin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeynhausen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU0OK5AAoJEC5d3lL7/I9zUacP/i7h2/rIPnAc3nJ6gog4udFe tiNEWZgbgWgbd83WvHWrs/FHUtWC5CukTl/li18jTiZaSgcOqcQBtyPeFHuWUcsy 1PKmd75/3TiTjOdwLcKvxvRrSmttvYJl9bqXrmyiyX+ZOsOcFnmlt8wcllyo26IU gs1nbpgsYynrTCX5qWvlBK0dmCvezHpEqXzIEM0f8gZzWpI0MB9jGmc6jzdMyMDC OAtJg1RstJ3B3Ew9gL4NBCgQYRW/oom9tFNVj+2sh8HmkWQuWbSzwajMlToSbtb3 VFL5T+wRIQRv6oRSuZbMI10VwTWCGM7umJckLkN6OcV6OIB9AUY5e+Dw9d4p5ks1 IpqRBdTC6o9CrNIj13K0SGtOQFF8DKmYAnMNgw/EVhWwtyWhJ8M7I+Pnrfn11Fet a0PyDVgrQaKpEhQxgkdfxAW/s4nf7xYfcWQx2QFc0+n5tev4NBHquzBVSkmXgTOa rcGJx0tOVCFGKLIy5EuMijvaP6TtByL+wkOwwIv/aYKJ5+YSGW4SsnDZUXyi6Czs KDNi9CHArJOuSiXTZ5/Bo82bPKm7KrNnIwpDf9hlKR+PeJj94k9inzkezGlDwdxY mIKQcXURut+EJzGwPggi0uPRgjgnCKX1ZZN9wj/qDtao9KPyf5eREB0GD/+SKGip lxMdv/KZU9/Y1/uDt7ud =E+Ya -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (4)
-
David Caro -
Eyal Edri -
Sandro Bonazzola -
Sven Kieske