I was thinking of an actual checklist where we can check-off/vote-off once each test is done. Perhaps we can start with a simple spreadsheet with the Tests specified by Raman added.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Chathuri Wimalasena <kamalas...@gmail.com>wrote: > There is a general checklist added by Raman [1], which covers basic > functionalities. > > Thanks.. > Chathuri > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRAVATA/Airavata+Release+Testing > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samin...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Suresh Marru <sma...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Amila for weighing in. Comments inline: >>> >>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Amila Jayasekara <thejaka.am...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Suresh, >>> > >>> > I have some comments inline. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Suresh Marru <sma...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > Hi All, >>> > >>> > This is a very good question. Lets discuss these options so we are >>> consistent across releases. >>> > >>> > If we look at the way we are doing releases, we are calling a feature >>> freeze and code freeze and cutting a release. Most of the time, our build >>> is broken. Jenkins statistics for Airavata is not looking good at all [1]. >>> > >>> > There is something wrong with the Jenkins configurations. I tried to >>> figure out sometime back I was unable to do so. Even though builds are >>> successful in our local machines they are failing intermittently in Jenkins. >>> > >>> > We are barely fixing the build a day before the release, putting out >>> an RC and testing on it and releasing it in a quick succession. >>> > >>> > This is not entirely true. For the past few months I only experienced >>> one or two build breaks (maybe less). I build couple of times per week. I >>> believe usually build is stable and with integration tests passing, we >>> always get a workable version. I know its not a good practice not to rely >>> on the build server. But commiters have personal discipline to keep the >>> build stable. Nevertheless we must fix Jenkins configuration issue. >>> >>> May be we should put focus on Jenkins configuration? Any volunteers? >>> >>> > >>> > As we are seeing on user lists, we have users upgrading with every >>> release. I think we should increase the release quality. >>> > >>> > +1 for this. >>> > >>> > I would vote for atleast 3 RC’s per release. If we are not finding >>> issues in first RC, I would say, either the software has magically become >>> too too good or we are not doing through testing. I suspect the later. >>> >> How about we keep a checklist of release tests? I know we already send a >> mail on dev on what needs to be tested for each RC, but I need that is too >> abstract. For core developers of Airavata I think there should be test >> cases predefined (a test document if you may). Since we have several core >> developers in the list we can atleast decide upon what must be tested and >> make sure that each test case is covered by atleast one developer for a RC. >> >>> > >>> > I guess you mentioned this under assumption that build is not stable. >>> >>> Half of my assumption is on Jenkins, so if builds are ok and Jenkins is >>> thinking wrong, then we can alleviate it by fixing it. >>> >>> > I will propose the following, please counter it and lets agree on a >>> process: >>> > >>> > * Lets post a RC1 as is (which means it will have a snapshot). This >>> pack, we should all test as much as possible, so its more of a test >>> candidate then a release candidate. If it helps, we can use the name TC1. I >>> am not particular on the naming but trying to emphasize the need for having >>> atleast more RC's per release. >>> > >>> > I am not sure whether we really need a TC. The release manager should >>> be doing some verifications on the RC before putting it out. Therefore it >>> should be a RC. Anyhow i am fine having TC concept and trying it out. >>> >>> We probably should stick to RC, but I think the onus should not be on >>> the RM to test it. They should coordinate and mobilize every one to do the >>> testing including doing a testing bit more than others. But my point is, we >>> should test and the only way to do that is to put a series of RC’s and have >>> focused testing. >>> >> A TC should be something internal IMO. But when we are going for a >> release it should be alpha, beta and then RC releases. I think it need not >> be mandatory for the RMs to do pre-evaluation of the builds other than >> making sure all the unit tests and integration tests pass. Once an RC is >> confirmed of release quality I think we can follow the actual release cycle >> from the trunk itself with since its in a code freeze anyway. >> >>> >>> Suresh >>> >>> > >>> > What we really need is set of verifiable test cases. >>> > >>> > Thank you >>> > Regards >>> > Amila >>> > >>> > >>> > * If we do not expose significant issues in RC/TC 1 then we proceed >>> with RC2 which will follow the proper release process. But if we have a >>> reasonable issues bought out, we need a RC2/TC2 also without following the >>> release process. >>> > >>> > * The key thing I am proposing is, we keep doing RC/TC’s until we all >>> are sure the quality is good enough with documented known issues. When we >>> are sure, then we proceed to have RC with proper release process. >>> > >>> > So this will mean more testing and twice (or more) the times every one >>> has to test, but I think it is worth it. This might also get over the 6 >>> week release cycle, but I think we need to trade for some quality releases >>> as we march towards 1.0. >>> > >>> > Suresh >>> > [1] - https://builds.apache.org/job/Apache%20Airavata/ >>> > >>> > >>> > On Dec 15, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake <glah...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Hi Chathuri, >>> > > >>> > > I think having snapshot as the version in RC is wrong. Every RC has >>> to be like a release and if it pass we just call a vote/discussion thread >>> and do the release. If we do with snapshot and if things go right, then >>> have to change versions and test again. But we can do the release just by >>> changing snapshot without testing but that wrong AFAIT. >>> > > >>> > > I remember doing this mistake in earlier release with RC1 build. I >>> think we can stick to the release management instructions in >>> airavata.org. >>> > > >>> > > Regards >>> > > Lahiru >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Chathuri Wimalasena < >>> kamalas...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > Hi All, >>> > > >>> > > Airavata 0.11 RC1[1] is ready for testing. >>> > > >>> > > Here are some pointers for testing >>> > > • Verify the fixed issue for this release [2] >>> > > • Verify the basic workflow composition/execution/monitoring >>> scenarios from >>> > > • Airavata 5 & 10 min tutorials [3],[4] >>> > > • Verify airavata client samples >>> > > • Verify the stability with derby & mysql backend databases >>> > > • Verify that the XBaya JNLP distribution works >>> > > • Verify deploying Airavata server in a tomcat distribution >>> > > Please report any issues[5] if you encounter while testing. Thank >>> you for your time in validating the release. >>> > > >>> > > Regards, >>> > > Chathuri (On behalf of Airavata PMC) >>> > > >>> > > [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airavata/0.11/RC1/ >>> > > [2] >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-278?jql=project%20%3D%20AIRAVATA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.11%22%20ORDER%20BY%20status%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC >>> > > [3] >>> http://airavata.apache.org/documentation/tutorials/airavata-in-5-minutes.html >>> > > [4] >>> http://airavata.apache.org/documentation/tutorials/airavata-in-10-minutes.html >>> > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > System Analyst Programmer >>> > > PTI Lab >>> > > Indiana University >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >
