Heh, I didn't know that wiki page existed. I've added an entry to the checklist.
There's also some talk of adding some help text to the vote message turbo-hipster leaves in gerrit, but we haven't gotten around to doing that yet. Cheers, Michael On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Matt Riedemann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12/31/2013 3:58 PM, Michael Still wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> So while turbo hipster is new, I've been reading every failure message >> it produces to make sure its not too badly wrong. There were four >> failures posted last night while I slept: >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/64521 >> ============================ >> >> This one is a TH bug. We shouldn't be testing stable branches. >> bug/1265238 has been filed to track this. >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61753 >> ============================ >> >> This is your review. The failed run's log is >> >> https://ssl.rcbops.com/turbo_hipster/logviewer/?q=/turbo_hipster/results/61/61753/8/check/gate-real-db-upgrade_nova_percona_user_001/1326092/user_001.log >> and you can see from the failure message that migrations 152 and 206 >> took "too long". >> >> Migration 152 took 326 seconds, where our historical data of 2,846 >> test migrations says it should take 222 seconds. Migration 206 took 81 >> seconds, where we think it should take 56 seconds based on 2,940 test >> runs. >> >> Whilst I can't explain why those migrations took too long this time >> around, they are certainly exactly the sort of thing TH is meant to >> catch. If you think your patch isn't responsible (perhaps the machine >> is just being slow or something), you can always retest by leaving a >> review comment of "recheck migrations". I have done this for you on >> this patch. > > > Michael, is "recheck migrations" something that is going to be added to the > wiki for test failures here? > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GerritJenkinsGit#Test_Failures > > >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61717 >> ============================ >> >> This review also had similar unexplained slowness, but has already >> been rechecked by someone else and now passes. I note that the >> slowness in both cases was from the same TH worker node, and I will >> keep an eye on that node today. >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56420 >> ============================ >> >> This review also had slowness in migration 206, but has been rechecked >> by the developer and now passes. It wasn't on the percona-001 worker >> that the other two were on, so perhaps this indicates that we need to >> relax the timing requirements for migration 206. >> >> Hope this helps, >> Michael >> >> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Gary Kotton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> It seems that she/he is behaving oddly again. I have posted a patch that >>> does not have any database changes and it has give me a –1…. >>> Happy new year >>> Gary >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >> >> > > -- > > Thanks, > > Matt Riedemann > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Rackspace Australia _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
