On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Steven Hardy <sha...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Justin Kilpatrick wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Ben Nemec <openst...@nemebean.com> > wrote: > > > Tempest isn't really either of those things. According to another > message > > > in this thread it takes around 15 minutes to run just the smoke tests. > > > That's unacceptable for a lot of our CI jobs. > > > I rather spend 15 minutes running tempest than add a regression or a new bug, which already happen in the past. > > Ben, is the issue merely the time it takes? Is it the affect that time > > taken has on hardware availability? > > It's both, but the main constraint is the infra job timeout, which is about > 2.5hrs - if you look at our current jobs many regularly get close to (and > sometimes exceed this), so we just don't have the time budget available to > run exhasutive tests every commit. > We have green light from infra to increase the job timeout to 5 hours, we do that in our periodic full tempest job. > > > Should we focus on how much testing we can get into N time period? > > Then how do we decide an optimal N > > for our constraints? > > Well yeah, but that's pretty much how/why we ended up with pingtest, it's > simple, fast, and provides an efficient way to do smoke tests, e.g creating > just one heat resource is enough to prove multiple OpenStack services are > running, as well as the DB/RPC etc etc. > > > I've been working on a full up functional test for OpenStack CI builds > > for a long time now, it works but takes > > more than 10 hours. IF you're interested in results kick through to > > Kibana here [0]. Let me know off list if you > > have any issues, the presentation of this data is all experimental still. > > This kind of thing is great, and I'd support more exhaustive testing via > periodic jobs etc, but the reality is we need to focus on "bang for buck" > e.g the deepest possible coverage in the most minimal amount of time for > our per-commit tests - we rely on the project gates to provide a full API > surface test, and we need to focus on more basic things like "did the > service > start", and "is the API accessible". Simple crud operations on a subset of > the API's is totally fine for this IMO, whether via pingtest or some other > means. > > Right now we do have a periodic job running full tempest, with a few skips, and because of the lack of tempest tests in the patches, it's being pretty hard to keep it stable enough to have a 100% pass, and of course, also the installation very often fails (like in the last five days). For example, [1] is the latest run we have in periodic job that we get results from tempest, and we have 114 failures that was caused by some new code/change, and I have no idea which one was, just looking at the failures, I can notice that smoke tests plus minimum basic scenario tests would catch these failures and the developer could fix it and make me happy :) Now I have to spend several hours installing and debugging each one of those tests to identify where/why it fails. Before this run, we got 100% pass, but unfortunately I don't have the results anymore, it was removed already from logs.openstack.org > Steve > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > [1] http://logs.openstack.org/periodic/periodic-tripleo-ci-centos-7-ovb-nonha-tempest-oooq/0072651/logs/oooq/stackviz/#/stdin
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev