On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:31:49 +0200 Lukas Brabec <lbra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hey, gang! > > As I read through standard interface and tried ansiblized branch of > libtaskotron, I found things that were not exactly clear to me and I > have some questions. My summer afternoon schedule involves feeding > rabbits (true story!) and I keep missing people on IRC, hence this > email. > > > = Test output and its format = > > Standard test interface specifies that [1]: > 1) "test system must examine the exit code of the playbook. A zero > exit code is successful test result, non-zero is failure" > and > 2) "test suite must treat the file test.log in the artifacts folder as > the main readable output of the test" > > ad 1) Examining the exit code is pretty straight forward. The mapping > to outcome would be zero to PASSED and non-zero to FAILED. Currently > we use more than these two outcomes, i.e. INFO and NEEDS_INSPECTION. > Are we still going to use them, if so, what would be the cases? The > playbook can fail by itself (e.g. fail like command not found, or > permission denied), but I presume this failure would be reported to > ExecDB not to ResultsDB. Any thoughts on this? I think that, for now at least, we won't be using the INFO and NEEDS_INSPECTION. The standard interface definition is what it is and they've decided that results are binary. It's possible that could change in the future but for now, the INFO and NEEDS_INSPECTION states probably won't be used when reporting to resultsdb. > ad 2) The standard interface does not specify the format of test > output, just that the test.log must be readable. Does this mean that > the output can be in any arbitrary format and the parsing of it would > be left to people who care, i.e. packagers? Wouldn't be this a problem > with if, for example, bodhi wanted to extract/parse this information > from ResultsDB and show it on update page? As far as I know, this was left vague on purpose so that it can change and be specified by the the test system. In this case, we'd definitely need to support the xunit xml format that I suspect most folks will be using but I'm open to the idea of keeping our results yaml format alive if it makes sense. So long as we're explicit about which formats are supported for our implementation of a test system and don't make silly choices, I think we're good here. > = Triggering generic tasks = > > Standard interface is centered around dist-git style tasks and doesn't > cover generic tasks like rpmlint or rpmdeplint. As these tasks are > Fedora QA specific, are we going to create custom extension to > standard interface, used only by our team, to be able to run generic > tasks? It'd be nice if it wasn't just us using it but the standard interface may indeed require some tweaking to get it to cover all of the usecases that we're interested in. Do you have any suggestions as to how we could make non-dist-git tasks work reasonably well without making drastic changes to what the standard interface currently is? > = Reporting to ResultsDB = > > Gating requirements for CI and CD contains [2]: > "It must be possible to represent CI test results in resultsdb." > However standard interface does not speak about resultsdb. The standard interface arguably shouldn't care about resultsdb. It does say "it must be possible to represent ..." and not "must report to resultsdb". > Does this mean, that task playbook won't contain something like > ResultsDB module (in contrast to ResultsDB directive in formulae), as > the task playbook should be agnostic to system in which it is run, and > the reporting will be done by our code in runtask? That's how I'm understanding things, yes. There may be other systems that we'll need to interface with but let's cross that bridge if and when we get there. > = Output of runtask = > > Libtaskotron's output is nice and readable, but output of the parts, > handled by ansible now, is not. My knowledge of ansible is still > limited, but as far as my experience goes, debuging ansible playbooks > or even asnible modules is kind of PITA. Are we going to address this > in some way, or just bite the bullet and move along? Do you have any ideas on how to improve that? One thing that I had in mind was to look at using ara to make the output a bit easier to digest. https://github.com/openstack/ara > = Params of runtask = > > When I tried ansiblized branch of libtaskotron, I ran into issues such > as unsupported params: ansible told me to run it with "-vvv" param, > which runtask does not understand. Is there a plan on how are we going > to forward such parameters (--ansible-opts= or just forward any params > we don't understand)? Personally, I think that --ansible-opts= makes sense here but I don't have terribly strong feelings about it. > Runtask, at the moment, maps our params to ansible-playbook params and > those defined by standard interface. Are we going to stick with this > or change our params to match the ones of ansible-playbook and > standard interface (e.g. item would become subject, etc)? I think that it'll likely make sense to adjust some of the params but to be honest, I haven't looked too closely at the differences in params. There are at least parts of the standard interface which aren't going anywhere soon so it would seem wise to start aligning with what they're doing where it makes sense. > = Future of runtask = > > For now, runtask is user-facing part of Taskotron. However, standard > interface is designed in such way, that authors of task playbooks > shouldn't care about Taskotron (or any other system that will run > their code). They can develop the tasks by simply using > ansible-playbook. Does this mean that runtask will become convenient > script for us that parses arguments and spins up a VM? Because > everything else is in wrapping ansbile playbook... Yeah, they could use ansible-playbook but in my mind, there are more user friendly ways to run a test than formatting args for ansible-playbook, downloading the target by myself. I think that the bigest way we can add value with runtask is making things easier - spawn declared vms (either in openstack, locally etc. depending on config), generating an inventory file so that the test author just has to worry about using what they requested, putting output into a more easily human understandable format, improving the local development experience etc. The role of runtask is certainly going to change as we switch from a custom yaml-based task language to using Ansible and its runner to handle most of the heavy lifting. That being said, I do see places where we can add value and improve the experience of our users. Tim > Lukas > > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InvokingTests > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_requirements_for_CI_and_CD > _______________________________________________ > qa-devel mailing list -- qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to qa-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
pgpc7tdNkCEq9.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list -- qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to qa-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
