9:40 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
>
> On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > >
> > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>
> > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > safe up to 95% or so.
> > > > >
> > > > > You just made up that number.
> > > > > I don't really understand why you would want
> > > > > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality.
> > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge changes, and do
> > > > it
> > > > as
> > > > safely as possible without relying on post-submit tools.
> > > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't have real statistics,
but
> > > > it
> > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of the time.
> > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the responsibility
> > > > of
> > > > the
> > > > developer to check that out and fix that.
> > >
> > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that point, as getting a
> > > failed patch inside the code means breaking all the other tests that
> > > run on top of it and that blocks all the development, not only that
> > > specific patch.
> > >
> >
> > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which there was a
> > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored.
> > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored.
> > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of the tests issue,
> > then you'll find about it later.
>
> I started the discussion, and I started it because a developer
> complained about not being able to merge a patch because it was
> failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was making all
> the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution to avoid getting
> to that point where a patch is merged while breaking the tests.
>
>
> So in summary, you are suggestion this:
>
> Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and -1 that only jenkins
> and managers can set
>
> Block form submitting any patches that have a -1
>
> Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if the flag was
> -1
>
+1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even with a rebase in gerrit.
going forward we're planning a few changes to the way jenkins jobs are run on ovirt
ci, which will help
reduce noise and imrove resources usages.
1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit tests/checkstyle will run
first and only then other heavy jobs will run (integration/rpms/findbugs)
2. using gating system like zuul to do the merge after verification of sanity jobs
automatically.
these will take time of course and will be done gradually.
And carry on also +1 in case of gerrit rebases.
> That way if any of the previous patches failed any test you won't be
> able to merge it unless a maintainer accepts or the tests pass. But if
> your previous patchset passed, you will be able to merge right away.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> Just for comparison, right now anyone with submit privileges can
> submit any patch rebasing and submitting before jenkins gives it's
> review. I don't see a real advantage, as right now only maintainers
> should be able to submit, so the people doing the submit already know
> that the tests are failing and ignoring it, your solution will not
> prevent them from keep ignoring them.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Devel mailing list
> > > > > Devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Devel mailing list
> > > > Devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Caro
> > >
> > > Red Hat S.L.
> > > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
> > >
> > > Tel.: +420 532 294 605
> > > Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
> > > Web: www.redhat.com
> > > RHT Global #: 82-62605
> > >
>
> --
> David Caro
>
> Red Hat S.L.
> Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
>
> Tel.: +420 532 294 605
> Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
> Web: www.redhat.com
> RHT Global #: 82-62605
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
3:39 p.m.
New subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>
To: devel(a)ovirt.org
Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>, "infra"
<infra(a)ovirt.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> >
> > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>,
devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > >
> > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>
> > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You just made up that number.
> > > > > > I don't really understand why you would want
> > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing tests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality.
> > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge changes,
and
> > > > > do
> > > > > it
> > > > > as
> > > > > safely as possible without relying on post-submit tools.
> > > > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't have real
statistics,
> > > > > but
> > > > > it
> > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of the time.
> > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the
> > > > > responsibility
> > > > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > developer to check that out and fix that.
> > > >
> > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that point, as getting a
> > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking all the other tests that
> > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the development, not only that
> > > > specific patch.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which there was a
> > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored.
> > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored.
> > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of the tests
> > > issue,
> > > then you'll find about it later.
> >
> > I started the discussion, and I started it because a developer
> > complained about not being able to merge a patch because it was
> > failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was making all
> > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution to avoid getting
> > to that point where a patch is merged while breaking the tests.
> >
> >
> > So in summary, you are suggestion this:
> >
> > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and -1 that only
jenkins
> > and managers can set
> >
> > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1
> >
> > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if the flag was
> > -1
> >
>
+1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even with a rebase
in gerrit.
going forward we're planning a few changes to the way jenkins jobs are run on
ovirt ci, which will help
reduce noise and imrove resources usages.
1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit tests/checkstyle
will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run
(integration/rpms/findbugs)
This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running "make check"
will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower tests if a fast test
failed.
Nir
3:59 p.m.
New subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
--AGZzQgpsuUlWC1xT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 12/10, Nir Soffer wrote:
=20
=20
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>
> To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>, "infra"
<infra(a)ovirt.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > >=20
> > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>,
devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > >=20
> > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske"
<s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>
> > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > You just made up that number.
> > > > > > > I don't really understand why you would want
> > > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing
tests.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit?
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality.
> > > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge
changes,=
and
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > safely as possible without relying on post-submit tools.
> > > > > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't have real
statist=
ics,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of the time.
> > > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the
> > > > > > responsibility
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > developer to check that out and fix that.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that point, as gett=
ing a
> > > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking
all the other tests=
that
> > > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the
development, not only =
that
> > > > > specific patch.
> > > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which there=
was a
> > > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored.
> > > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored.
> > > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of the tests
> > > > issue,
> > > > then you'll find about it later.
> > >=20
> > > I started the discussion, and I started it because a developer
> > > complained about not being able to merge a patch because it was
> > > failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was making all
> > > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution to avoid getti=
ng
> > > to that point where a patch is merged while breaking
the tests.
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > So in summary, you are suggestion this:
> > >=20
> > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and -1 that only
jen=
kins
> > > and managers can set
> > >=20
> > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1
> > >=20
> > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if the flag =
was
> > > -1
> > >=20
> >=20
>=20
> +1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even with a r=
ebase
> in gerrit.
> going forward we're planning a few changes to the way jenkins jobs are =
run on
> ovirt ci, which will help
> reduce noise and imrove resources usages.
>=20
> 1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit tests/chec=
kstyle
> will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run
> (integration/rpms/findbugs)
=20
This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running "make check"
will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower tests if a fast=
test
failed.
Please change to be able to run only fast tests or only slow tests,
that way we can separate the job into two and give feedback about the
fast tests before the slows have finished running.
Actually what eyal is talking about is not inside the project flow,
but jenkins build pipeline. Thar ranges from static checks, unit
tests, functional tests, builds and deployments (in the future).
So instead of having one job for each step and running all of them in
parallel, you'll run in a hierarchical manner, to avoid having to wat
for all the tests to get feedback or failing before starting the most
complex long-running tests.
=20
Nir
_______________________________________________
Infra mailing list
Infra(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
--=20
David Caro
Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
--AGZzQgpsuUlWC1xT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUiF/YAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnD7HcH+wRFNKrzqUS/JO7f5YQCZxu3
4U4D/gKyURIPI0ghdf8vmEWbBQq4wKanKaO533rPuu9ZhuJRNOLhHCBA+I7rVdvL
eyGN4E0gidWDb5tBtp5PaoRauEs7tC5DGMH0ZzyskfrBZeyUUjtbbmsCnAM7noya
gx4nQh7lbE0e28ZbOt2GonAPVVkoYvQ+msd8v9/pG7Hks+KkO+24BuTfPRecSl3c
qslRw09jBJoTdIuO4irfVqtUO4engLckFu02Q3ID5Q+qsXscG+AGGSvSzOVLtr3V
1WXalQ1qNd15+MB0q6n4XgQamRzsANQ8glcuSIdWeR2b96xuwrjz1MZeiSwUXdE=
=AbWb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--AGZzQgpsuUlWC1xT--
5:44 p.m.
New subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>, devel(a)ovirt.org, "infra"
<infra(a)ovirt.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:59:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
On 12/10, Nir Soffer wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>
> > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>, "infra"
<infra(a)ovirt.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > >
> > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>,
devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske"
<s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>
> > > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit
flag
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You just made up that number.
> > > > > > > > I don't really understand why you would want
> > > > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing
tests.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality.
> > > > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge
changes,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > safely as possible without relying on post-submit
tools.
> > > > > > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't have
real
> > > > > > > statistics,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of the time.
> > > > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the
> > > > > > > responsibility
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > developer to check that out and fix that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that point, as
> > > > > > getting a
> > > > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking all the other
tests
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the development, not
only
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > specific patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which
there
> > > > > was a
> > > > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored.
> > > > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored.
> > > > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of the
tests
> > > > > issue,
> > > > > then you'll find about it later.
> > > >
> > > > I started the discussion, and I started it because a developer
> > > > complained about not being able to merge a patch because it was
> > > > failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was making all
> > > > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution to avoid
getting
> > > > to that point where a patch is merged while breaking the tests.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So in summary, you are suggestion this:
> > > >
> > > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and -1 that
only
> > > > jenkins
> > > > and managers can set
> > > >
> > > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1
> > > >
> > > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if the flag
> > > > was
> > > > -1
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > +1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even with a
> > rebase
> > in gerrit.
> > going forward we're planning a few changes to the way jenkins jobs are
> > run on
> > ovirt ci, which will help
> > reduce noise and imrove resources usages.
> >
> > 1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit
> > tests/checkstyle
> > will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run
> > (integration/rpms/findbugs)
>
> This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running "make check"
> will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower tests if a fast
> test
> failed.
Please change to be able to run only fast tests or only slow tests,
that way we can separate the job into two and give feedback about the
fast tests before the slows have finished running.
Actually what eyal is talking about is not inside the project flow,
but jenkins build pipeline. Thar ranges from static checks, unit
tests, functional tests, builds and deployments (in the future).
So instead of having one job for each step and running all of them in
parallel, you'll run in a hierarchical manner, to avoid having to wat
for all the tests to get feedback or failing before starting the most
complex long-running tests.
+1 for preventing failing test changes to be merged into master.
I also agree that the biggest barrier for achieving that are the test that run ages
and making them finish in a shorter time would enable us implement the proposed change.
We could've achieve that by:
1. Splitting our repo into several smaller ones (according to the projects structure)
so only the very relevant part of the project tests would be run on on every change
merge.
2. Creating only fast running unit tests.
2.1. All test that run longer than 2 seconds should be reviewed and rewritten/eliminated.
2.2. Avoid creating the unit tests that check more than one class functionality.
Using DI in our code should help us with that.
3. If we insist on long running tests, I guess they aren't proper unit tests,
we should extract them into a separate test set and run them periodically (nightly).
>
> Nir
> _______________________________________________
> Infra mailing list
> Infra(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
--
David Caro
Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
10:53 a.m.
New subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>, "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>, devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:59:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
On 12/10, Nir Soffer wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>
> > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>, "infra"
<infra(a)ovirt.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > >
> > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>,
devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske"
<s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>
> > > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit
flag
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You just made up that number.
> > > > > > > > I don't really understand why you would want
> > > > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing
tests.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality.
> > > > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge
changes,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > safely as possible without relying on post-submit
tools.
> > > > > > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't have
real
> > > > > > > statistics,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of the time.
> > > > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the
> > > > > > > responsibility
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > developer to check that out and fix that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that point, as
> > > > > > getting a
> > > > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking all the other
tests
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the development, not
only
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > specific patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which
there
> > > > > was a
> > > > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored.
> > > > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored.
> > > > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of the
tests
> > > > > issue,
> > > > > then you'll find about it later.
> > > >
> > > > I started the discussion, and I started it because a developer
> > > > complained about not being able to merge a patch because it was
> > > > failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was making all
> > > > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution to avoid
getting
> > > > to that point where a patch is merged while breaking the tests.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So in summary, you are suggestion this:
> > > >
> > > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and -1 that
only
> > > > jenkins
> > > > and managers can set
> > > >
> > > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1
> > > >
> > > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if the flag
> > > > was
> > > > -1
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > +1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even with a
> > rebase
> > in gerrit.
> > going forward we're planning a few changes to the way jenkins jobs are
> > run on
> > ovirt ci, which will help
> > reduce noise and imrove resources usages.
> >
> > 1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit
> > tests/checkstyle
> > will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run
> > (integration/rpms/findbugs)
>
> This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running "make check"
> will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower tests if a fast
> test
> failed.
Please change to be able to run only fast tests or only slow tests,
that way we can separate the job into two and give feedback about the
fast tests before the slows have finished running.
These are the available targets (from faster to slower):
- gitignore - check that certain files are ignored
- pyflakes - check common Python errors (e.g. unused imports)
- pep8 - style check
- check - run the fast checks above and if successful, the unittests
Environment variables:
NOSE_SLOW_TESTS=1 - enable slow tests (we have only few)
NOSE_STRESS_TESTS=1 - enable stress tests (probably not useful for the CI)
Note that the environment variables are used only for the tests in
vdsm/tests there are few tests in various sub directories that do
not use the test infrastructure in vdsm/tests.
- check-all - run make check enbaling both slow and stress tests
Do you need a separate target for the unittests?
Nir
11:06 a.m.
New subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
--qYrsQHciA3Wqs7Iv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 12/11, Nir Soffer wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>, "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>, =
"infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>,
devel(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:59:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
>=20
> On 12/10, Nir Soffer wrote:
> >=20
> >=20
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>
> > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>, "infra"
<infra(a)ovirt.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > >=20
> > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "David Caro"
<dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske"
<s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske"
<s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>
> > > > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new
gerrit flag
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > You just made up that number.
> > > > > > > > > I don't really understand why you would
want
> > > > > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by
circumventing tests.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit?
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality.
> > > > > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both
merge chan=
ges,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > safely as possible without relying on post-submit
tools.
> > > > > > > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't
have real
> > > > > > > > statistics,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of the
time.
> > > > > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is
the
> > > > > > > > responsibility
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > developer to check that out and fix that.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that
point, as
> > > > > > > getting a
> > > > > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking all the
other t=
ests
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the development,
not o=
nly
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > specific patch.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which
t=
here
> > > > > > was a
> > > > > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored.
> > > > > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored.
> > > > > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of
the =
tests
> > > > > > issue,
> > > > > > then you'll find about it later.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I started the discussion, and I started it because a developer
> > > > > complained about not being able to merge a patch because it was
> > > > > failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was makin=
g all
> > > > > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a
solution to avoid g=
etting
> > > > > to that point where a patch is merged while
breaking the tests.
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > So in summary, you are suggestion this:
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and -1
that only
> > > > > jenkins
> > > > > and managers can set
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if the f=
lag
> > > > > was
> > > > > -1
> > > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > +1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even with=
a
> > > rebase
> > > in gerrit.
> > > going forward we're planning a few changes to the way jenkins jobs =
are
> > > run on
> > > ovirt ci, which will help
> > > reduce noise and imrove resources usages.
> > >=20
> > > 1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit
> > > tests/checkstyle
> > > will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run
> > > (integration/rpms/findbugs)
> >=20
> > This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running "make ch=
eck"
> > will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower
tests if a =
fast
> > test
> > failed.
>=20
> Please change to be able to run only fast tests or only slow tests,
> that way we can separate the job into two and give feedback about the
> fast tests before the slows have finished running.
=20
These are the available targets (from faster to slower):
=20
- gitignore - check that certain files are ignored
=20
- pyflakes - check common Python errors (e.g. unused imports)
=20
- pep8 - style check
=20
- check - run the fast checks above and if successful, the unittests
=20
Environment variables:
=20
NOSE_SLOW_TESTS=3D1 - enable slow tests (we have only few)
NOSE_STRESS_TESTS=3D1 - enable stress tests (probably not useful for th=
e CI)
=20
Note that the environment variables are used only for the tests in
vdsm/tests there are few tests in various sub directories that do=20
not use the test infrastructure in vdsm/tests.
=20
- check-all - run make check enbaling both slow and stress tests
=20
Do you need a separate target for the unittests?
I just want to be able to execute:
make fast-check
for fast checks (you decide what are and what are not)
make slow-check
for slow checks, non overlapping, meaning that if you want to runa ll
the checks, you'll have to use fast and then slow.
The idea is to generalize the interface we use for the tests between
all the ovirt projects so from ci we don't have to go keeping specific
scripts for each provect and for each project version. And be able to
run the fast checks (on each patchset, merges included) and the slow
ones (on each merge only) separated so we can give feedback faster and
not start the slow ones. Then after that goes the building of the rpm,
and then the functional tests. And last the release if relevant.
On patch:
fast_check
On merge:
fast_check -> slow_check -> build -> functional_check -> release
That flow is generic for all the projects, so each project will have
to implement the same interface to run each step (I don't really care
if it's make fast-check or just a bash script that runs whatever you
need underneath, the key is not having to specify any options if
possible and running just one line, the same everywhere).
That simplifies a LOT the maintenance of the jenkins jobs, and allows
to change the way checks are run bound to the version of the product.
Next step is to specify the required dependencies inside the project,
so the dependencies for the tests are also stored in the repo and
bound to the code, and installed in the test env on demand so no more
issues with versioning or new dependencies. Right now that is
hardcoded in the job itself, making it break if any future version
needs a different dependency list. Not sure yet what's the best way to
do that though, maybe a simple puppet manifest would be the way to
go... because having a requirements.txt file is python specific and
not all the projects we have are python or use distutils at all.
Ideas are welcome.
=20
Nir
--=20
David Caro
Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
--qYrsQHciA3Wqs7Iv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUiWygAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDaVEH/0zTqlMQzeJ0hlUJL17MO2GX
eU5KaoxzaVW/GA3T7Vd4wikpuS4pj5Pwu+dg8sUK20T9W17fQeKBx9ODrXIJff84
yq3jPO7lzdPdt7GG+g4uHSygzym/5ABTaoaHWVm4u379q9PQNSxLVLl4mSudfw0L
XBLLMyxZUGxiRvl2GESTjZtyD1U/sgr4ZpsZWTZKdUPF9kmK3/NUqCivaHx6whbH
6Yg2TtbhYL2tm2JXPdnQiCMg9D93B2VOrl5h47V3tTjbdYHYGjR6HC3KftSbmmQS
0YyA9KX2nzDN5mwwjErb8mvnUQz6OaFZD6jzKNrb88p0UPWMzD8WvoaQ4zX6E3g=
=SWC6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--qYrsQHciA3Wqs7Iv--
11:19 a.m.
New subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>, "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>, devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:06:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
On 12/11, Nir Soffer wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>, "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>,
> > "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:59:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> >
> > On 12/10, Nir Soffer wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>
> > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>,
"infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "David Caro"
<dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske"
<s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit
flag
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske"
<s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>
> > > > > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43
PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a
new gerrit flag
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You just made up that number.
> > > > > > > > > > I don't really understand why you
would want
> > > > > > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by
circumventing tests.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a
bit?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality.
> > > > > > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can
both merge
> > > > > > > > > changes,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > safely as possible without relying on
post-submit tools.
> > > > > > > > > The number is indeed invented... as I
don't have real
> > > > > > > > > statistics,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of
the time.
> > > > > > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail,
it is the
> > > > > > > > > responsibility
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > developer to check that out and fix that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that
point, as
> > > > > > > > getting a
> > > > > > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking all
the other
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the
development, not
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > specific patch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in
which
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > was a
> > > > > > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored.
> > > > > > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be
ignored.
> > > > > > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source
of the
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > issue,
> > > > > > > then you'll find about it later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I started the discussion, and I started it because a
developer
> > > > > > complained about not being able to merge a patch because it
was
> > > > > > failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was
making
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution to
avoid
> > > > > > getting
> > > > > > to that point where a patch is merged while breaking the
tests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So in summary, you are suggestion this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and
-1 that only
> > > > > > jenkins
> > > > > > and managers can set
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if
the
> > > > > > flag
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > -1
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even with
a
> > > > rebase
> > > > in gerrit.
> > > > going forward we're planning a few changes to the way jenkins
jobs
> > > > are
> > > > run on
> > > > ovirt ci, which will help
> > > > reduce noise and imrove resources usages.
> > > >
> > > > 1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit
> > > > tests/checkstyle
> > > > will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run
> > > > (integration/rpms/findbugs)
> > >
> > > This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running "make
> > > check"
> > > will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower tests if a
> > > fast
> > > test
> > > failed.
> >
> > Please change to be able to run only fast tests or only slow tests,
> > that way we can separate the job into two and give feedback about the
> > fast tests before the slows have finished running.
>
> These are the available targets (from faster to slower):
>
> - gitignore - check that certain files are ignored
>
> - pyflakes - check common Python errors (e.g. unused imports)
>
> - pep8 - style check
>
> - check - run the fast checks above and if successful, the unittests
>
> Environment variables:
>
> NOSE_SLOW_TESTS=1 - enable slow tests (we have only few)
> NOSE_STRESS_TESTS=1 - enable stress tests (probably not useful for the
> CI)
>
> Note that the environment variables are used only for the tests in
> vdsm/tests there are few tests in various sub directories that do
> not use the test infrastructure in vdsm/tests.
>
> - check-all - run make check enbaling both slow and stress tests
>
> Do you need a separate target for the unittests?
I just want to be able to execute:
> make fast-check
for fast checks (you decide what are and what are not)
> make slow-check
for slow checks, non overlapping, meaning that if you want to runa ll
the checks, you'll have to use fast and then slow.
The idea is to generalize the interface we use for the tests between
all the ovirt projects so from ci we don't have to go keeping specific
scripts for each provect and for each project version. And be able to
run the fast checks (on each patchset, merges included) and the slow
ones (on each merge only) separated so we can give feedback faster and
not start the slow ones. Then after that goes the building of the rpm,
and then the functional tests. And last the release if relevant.
On patch:
fast_check
fast_check is not a good name - how about check-patch?
On merge:
fast_check -> slow_check -> build -> functional_check -> release
Same: how about check-merge?
That flow is generic for all the projects, so each project will have
to implement the same interface to run each step (I don't really care
if it's make fast-check or just a bash script that runs whatever you
need underneath, the key is not having to specify any options if
possible and running just one line, the same everywhere).
These target do not make any sense out of the CI environment.
I think you should implement these using a wrapper, adapting any
project the the CI "interface".
We can provide the building blocks using the makefile, so the CI
can use them to build the required flow.
That simplifies a LOT the maintenance of the jenkins jobs, and allows
to change the way checks are run bound to the version of the product.
Since each version may have different makefile, the CI wrapper must
handle this.
Nir
12:22 p.m.
New subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
--xXygN3QAmJYWdGtb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 12/11, Nir Soffer wrote:
=20
=20
----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>, "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>, =
"infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>,
devel(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:06:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
>=20
> On 12/11, Nir Soffer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>, "Oved
Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.co=
m>,
> > > "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>,
devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:59:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > >=20
> > > On 12/10, Nir Soffer wrote:
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>,
"infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "David Caro"
<dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "David Caro"
<dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske"
<s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>, devel(a)ovirt.o=
rg
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December
9, 2014 3:40:30 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new
gerrit flag
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske"
<s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014
3:21:43 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel]
Creating a new gerrit fl=
ag
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so.
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > You just made up that number.
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't really understand why
you would want
> > > > > > > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by
circumventing tes=
ts.
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on
this a bit?
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code
quality.
> > > > > > > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers
can both merge
> > > > > > > > > > changes,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > safely as possible without relying on
post-submit too=
ls.
> > > > > > > > > > The number is
indeed invented... as I don't have real
> > > > > > > > > > statistics,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most
of the time.
> > > > > > > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will
fail, it is the
> > > > > > > > > > responsibility
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > developer to check that out and fix
that.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to
that point,=
as
> > > > > > > > > getting a
> > > > > > > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking
all the oth=
er
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the
development, n=
ot
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > specific patch.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > The issue that started the discussion was an
issue in whi=
ch
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > was a
> > > > > > > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored.
> > > > > > > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be
ignored.
> > > > > > > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the
source of =
the
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > issue,
> > > > > > > > then you'll find about it later.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > I started the discussion, and I started it because a
develo=
per
> > > > > > > complained about not being able to
merge a patch because it=
was
> > > > > > > failing the tests due to an
already merged patch that was m=
aking
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution
to avo=
id
> > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > to that point where a patch is merged while breaking
the te=
sts.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > So in summary, you are suggestion this:
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0
and -1 that =
only
> > > > > > > jenkins
> > > > > > > and managers can set
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only
if t=
he
> > > > > > > flag
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > +1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even =
with a
> > > > > rebase
> > > > > in gerrit.
> > > > > going forward we're planning a few changes to the way
jenkins j=
obs
> > > > > are
> > > > > run on
> > > > > ovirt ci, which will help
> > > > > reduce noise and imrove resources usages.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > 1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit
> > > > > tests/checkstyle
> > > > > will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run
> > > > > (integration/rpms/findbugs)
> > > >=20
> > > > This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running
"make
> > > > check"
> > > > will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower tests i=
f a
> > > > fast
> > > > test
> > > > failed.
> > >=20
> > > Please change to be able to run only fast tests or only slow tests,
> > > that way we can separate the job into two and give feedback about t=
he
> > > fast tests before the slows have finished running.
> >=20
> > These are the available targets (from faster to slower):
> >=20
> > - gitignore - check that certain files are ignored
> >=20
> > - pyflakes - check common Python errors (e.g. unused imports)
> >=20
> > - pep8 - style check
> >=20
> > - check - run the fast checks above and if successful, the unittests
> >=20
> > Environment variables:
> >=20
> > NOSE_SLOW_TESTS=3D1 - enable slow tests (we have only few)
> > NOSE_STRESS_TESTS=3D1 - enable stress tests (probably not useful fo=
r
the
> > CI)
> >=20
> > Note that the environment variables are used only for the tests in
> > vdsm/tests there are few tests in various sub directories that do
> > not use the test infrastructure in vdsm/tests.
> >=20
> > - check-all - run make check enbaling both slow and stress tests
> >=20
> > Do you need a separate target for the unittests?
>=20
> I just want to be able to execute:
>=20
> > make fast-check
>=20
> for fast checks (you decide what are and what are not)
>=20
> > make slow-check
>=20
> for slow checks, non overlapping, meaning that if you want to runa ll
> the checks, you'll have to use fast and then slow.
>=20
> The idea is to generalize the interface we use for the tests between
> all the ovirt projects so from ci we don't have to go keeping specific
> scripts for each provect and for each project version. And be able to
> run the fast checks (on each patchset, merges included) and the slow
> ones (on each merge only) separated so we can give feedback faster and
> not start the slow ones. Then after that goes the building of the rpm,
> and then the functional tests. And last the release if relevant.
>=20
> On patch:
> fast_check
=20
fast_check is not a good name - how about check-patch?
That name is just a placeholder for the step where you run the fast
checks, however you do it is not specified here.
=20
>=20
> On merge:
> fast_check -> slow_check -> build -> functional_check -> release
=20
Same: how about check-merge?
=20
>=20
> That flow is generic for all the projects, so each project will have
> to implement the same interface to run each step (I don't really care
> if it's make fast-check or just a bash script that runs whatever you
> need underneath, the key is not having to specify any options if
> possible and running just one line, the same everywhere).
=20
These target do not make any sense out of the CI environment.
And that's part of the development process, as much as creating unit
tests. I think that's the point that is creating all the fuss around
this. For you CI is external to the development.
=20
I think you should implement these using a wrapper, adapting any
project the the CI "interface".
I totally disagree, because that 'adapter' is bound to a project and
to a version, making it a perfect fit to have it inside the
project code, changing it at the same time you change the code and
adapting it to the code changes while they are made.
Writing that adapter external to the project itself means that you
have one adapter per project, and per project version, so doing some
number, we have right now >50 projects so that would mean having to
monitor all the 50 projects for each patch, and create a new adapet
each time a change is made that modifies the way it runs the tests or
the dependencies it needs. And bind that to that specific hash (and
future ones).
Compare that to having the 'adapter' inside the project, where you
modify it on the same commit you change the way it builds or the
dependencies, and just using that.
If on the first step you need a team with 10% (random number) of the
developers creating patches to keep up the pace, with the last you
don't need anyone doing that job and you'll get no false failure and
you'll have no 'adaptation' period where the code running does not
have the correct deps or tests.
=20
We can provide the building blocks using the makefile, so the CI
can use them to build the required flow.
I don't really care what tools to use, I just want the interface
implemented. If you decide to use a bash script ok for me, if it's a
make targe, ok for ma, if its a perl script, ruby script, python
script or anything else, ok for me too. Just the same everywhere.
=20
>=20
> That simplifies a LOT the maintenance of the jenkins jobs, and allows
> to change the way checks are run bound to the version of the product.
=20
Since each version may have different makefile, the CI wrapper must
handle this.
Totally disagree. Not implementing this means that the job will fail
each time the code changes (because you can't maintain as many job
versions as code changes in parallel and select each of them depending
on the commit hash or whatever). This is a blocker to automate any
CI and to keep a stable CI.
If this is not done the stability will keep being low (because each
dependency or version change will mean that the jobs fail, just like
they are failing due to ioprocess or as they failed with pthread or
pep8).
And the maintenance will be very high, just like it is right now,
requiring puppet and job changes each time a new dependency is needed
and doing tricks and malabars when versions conflict, just like we do
now, what enforces us to use specialized slaves and not being able to
take advantage of all the resources we have.
=20
Nir
--=20
David Caro
Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
--xXygN3QAmJYWdGtb
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUiX5ZAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDJGgH/3gS5VE2DJeGDizi3Q9rjDn6
FA8hZRiAXYG+pqhxRZHaALcFWsFFr18wkD978QiubW1EQqE2AxIhgCKEk/QU2wF5
rySK42l40uoSOI7iMu1d0Ip4T+UjILX6qmhYI35DePKlJIUFMTyjrGja3jYAO0uT
grQiXeLpUqKs/P1QYXGRCUfrskxy/hJi+m2xJWYl++AtLr+DDjF8z2dHn4y/AhCO
KJJLdpUd2gQEFn2eMsPNqwe7P/PWfcaqed3vXVFR6gmK/ie6bY5iRfTX6yeK4nUB
vWShzPSbN0et4AuUTli1TsjISitDmnRFGT26oCMWsJ3y+TYMU60NCKdPbU/xJms=
=ep1l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--xXygN3QAmJYWdGtb--
12:47 p.m.
New subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>, "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>, devel(a)ovirt.org,
"Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:22:01 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
On 12/11, Nir Soffer wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>, "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>,
> > "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:06:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> >
> > On 12/11, Nir Soffer wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>, "Oved
Ourfali"
> > > > <ovedo(a)redhat.com>,
> > > > "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:59:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > >
> > > > On 12/10, Nir Soffer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>,
"infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > To: "David Caro"
<dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "David Caro"
<dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit
flag
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "David Caro"
<dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali"
<ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske"
<s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>, devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30
PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a
new gerrit flag
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske"
<s.kieske(a)mittwald.de>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9,
2014 3:21:43 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel]
Creating a new gerrit flag
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved
Ourfali wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You just made up that
number.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't really understand
why you would want
> > > > > > > > > > > > to downgrade your code
quality by circumventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate
on this a bit?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code
quality.
> > > > > > > > > > > It is just a way to ensure
developers can both merge
> > > > > > > > > > > changes,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > safely as possible without relying
on post-submit
> > > > > > > > > > > tools.
> > > > > > > > > > > The number is indeed invented...
as I don't have real
> > > > > > > > > > > statistics,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > comes to say that it would be safe
most of the time.
> > > > > > > > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI
will fail, it is the
> > > > > > > > > > > responsibility
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > developer to check that out and
fix that.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This thread was started to avoid
getting to that point,
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > getting a
> > > > > > > > > > failed patch inside the code means
breaking all the other
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > run on top of it and that blocks all
the development, not
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > specific patch.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The issue that started the discussion was an
issue in which
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > was a
> > > > > > > > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was
ignored.
> > > > > > > > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't
be ignored.
> > > > > > > > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is
the source of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > issue,
> > > > > > > > > then you'll find about it later.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I started the discussion, and I started it
because a
> > > > > > > > developer
> > > > > > > > complained about not being able to merge a patch
because it
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > failing the tests due to an already merged patch
that was
> > > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a
solution to avoid
> > > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > to that point where a patch is merged while
breaking the
> > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So in summary, you are suggestion this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values
+1, 0 and -1 that
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > jenkins
> > > > > > > > and managers can set
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches
only if the
> > > > > > > > flag
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged,
even
> > > > > > with a
> > > > > > rebase
> > > > > > in gerrit.
> > > > > > going forward we're planning a few changes to the way
jenkins
> > > > > > jobs
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > run on
> > > > > > ovirt ci, which will help
> > > > > > reduce noise and imrove resources usages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like
unit
> > > > > > tests/checkstyle
> > > > > > will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run
> > > > > > (integration/rpms/findbugs)
> > > > >
> > > > > This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running
"make
> > > > > check"
> > > > > will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower tests
if
> > > > > a
> > > > > fast
> > > > > test
> > > > > failed.
> > > >
> > > > Please change to be able to run only fast tests or only slow tests,
> > > > that way we can separate the job into two and give feedback about
the
> > > > fast tests before the slows have finished running.
> > >
> > > These are the available targets (from faster to slower):
> > >
> > > - gitignore - check that certain files are ignored
> > >
> > > - pyflakes - check common Python errors (e.g. unused imports)
> > >
> > > - pep8 - style check
> > >
> > > - check - run the fast checks above and if successful, the unittests
> > >
> > > Environment variables:
> > >
> > > NOSE_SLOW_TESTS=1 - enable slow tests (we have only few)
> > > NOSE_STRESS_TESTS=1 - enable stress tests (probably not useful for
> > > the
> > > CI)
> > >
> > > Note that the environment variables are used only for the tests in
> > > vdsm/tests there are few tests in various sub directories that do
> > > not use the test infrastructure in vdsm/tests.
> > >
> > > - check-all - run make check enbaling both slow and stress tests
> > >
> > > Do you need a separate target for the unittests?
> >
> > I just want to be able to execute:
> >
> > > make fast-check
> >
> > for fast checks (you decide what are and what are not)
> >
> > > make slow-check
> >
> > for slow checks, non overlapping, meaning that if you want to runa ll
> > the checks, you'll have to use fast and then slow.
> >
> > The idea is to generalize the interface we use for the tests between
> > all the ovirt projects so from ci we don't have to go keeping specific
> > scripts for each provect and for each project version. And be able to
> > run the fast checks (on each patchset, merges included) and the slow
> > ones (on each merge only) separated so we can give feedback faster and
> > not start the slow ones. Then after that goes the building of the rpm,
> > and then the functional tests. And last the release if relevant.
> >
> > On patch:
> > fast_check
>
> fast_check is not a good name - how about check-patch?
That name is just a placeholder for the step where you run the fast
checks, however you do it is not specified here.
>
> >
> > On merge:
> > fast_check -> slow_check -> build -> functional_check ->
release
>
> Same: how about check-merge?
>
> >
> > That flow is generic for all the projects, so each project will have
> > to implement the same interface to run each step (I don't really care
> > if it's make fast-check or just a bash script that runs whatever you
> > need underneath, the key is not having to specify any options if
> > possible and running just one line, the same everywhere).
>
> These target do not make any sense out of the CI environment.
And that's part of the development process, as much as creating unit
tests. I think that's the point that is creating all the fuss around
this. For you CI is external to the development.
>
> I think you should implement these using a wrapper, adapting any
> project the the CI "interface".
I totally disagree, because that 'adapter' is bound to a project and
to a version, making it a perfect fit to have it inside the
project code, changing it at the same time you change the code and
adapting it to the code changes while they are made.
Writing that adapter external to the project itself means that you
have one adapter per project, and per project version, so doing some
number, we have right now >50 projects so that would mean having to
monitor all the 50 projects for each patch, and create a new adapet
each time a change is made that modifies the way it runs the tests or
the dependencies it needs. And bind that to that specific hash (and
future ones).
Compare that to having the 'adapter' inside the project, where you
modify it on the same commit you change the way it builds or the
dependencies, and just using that.
If on the first step you need a team with 10% (random number) of the
developers creating patches to keep up the pace, with the last you
don't need anyone doing that job and you'll get no false failure and
you'll have no 'adaptation' period where the code running does not
have the correct deps or tests.
Keeping the CI adapter in the project is fine, but it should be
separate from the build system so we do not have to change the
build system if we want to make changes in the CI.
> We can provide the building blocks using the makefile, so the
CI
> can use them to build the required flow.
I don't really care what tools to use, I just want the interface
implemented. If you decide to use a bash script ok for me, if it's a
make targe, ok for ma, if its a perl script, ruby script, python
script or anything else, ok for me too. Just the same everywhere.
Ok, lets have these scripts in the root of each project:
check-patch - run for each patch submitted
check-merge - run before merging a patch
So the CI can use the same code for any project.
> > That simplifies a LOT the maintenance of the jenkins jobs,
and allows
> > to change the way checks are run bound to the version of the product.
>
> Since each version may have different makefile, the CI wrapper must
> handle this.
Totally disagree. Not implementing this means that the job will fail
each time the code changes (because you can't maintain as many job
versions as code changes in parallel and select each of them depending
on the commit hash or whatever). This is a blocker to automate any
CI and to keep a stable CI.
If this is not done the stability will keep being low (because each
dependency or version change will mean that the jobs fail, just like
they are failing due to ioprocess or as they failed with pthread or
pep8).
And the maintenance will be very high, just like it is right now,
requiring puppet and job changes each time a new dependency is needed
and doing tricks and malabars when versions conflict, just like we do
now, what enforces us to use specialized slaves and not being able to
take advantage of all the resources we have.
We may need different scripts for different versions of a project,
but that can be handled in the project by backporting the ci
hooks.
Nir
3445
days inactive
3446
days old
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
David Caro -
Eyal Edri -
Nir Soffer -
Yevgeny Zaspitsky