On 14/01/16 12:01, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Neil, > > The global requirements upper-constraints.txt do not cover neutron > unit test targets. So the unit tests pick up latest from pypi.
I'm afraid I don't understand how that's related to my question below. Could you explain further? It seems you might be saying that upper-constraints.txt should have no effect on Neutron UTs. But my understanding from Carl's message is that an upper-constraints.txt change caused a Neutron UT (running as part of a gate job) to fail. So I'm not sure how to understand your statement. Thanks, Neil > > -- Dims > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Neil Jerram <neil.jer...@metaswitch.com> > wrote: >> On 13/01/16 19:27, Carl Baldwin wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was looking at the most recent gate breakage in Neutron [1], fixed >>> by [2]. This gate breakage was held off for some time by the >>> upper-constraints.txt file. This is great progress and I applaud it. >>> I'll continue to cheer on this effort. >>> >>> Now to the next problem. If my assessment of this gate failure is >>> correct, the update to the upper-constraints file [3] was merged >>> without running all of the tests across all of the projects that would >>> be broken by bringing in this new constraint. So, we still get >>> breakage and it is still (IMO) too often. >>> >>> As I see it, there are a couple of options. >>> >>> 1) We run all tests under the upper-constraints control on all updates >>> to the upper constraints file like [2]. This would probably mean each >>> update has a very long list of tests and we would require that they >>> all be fixed before the upper constraint update can be merged. This >>> seems like a difficult thing to coordinate all at once. >>> 2) We handle upper-constraints much like we do the global requirements >>> updates. We have the master and a bot that proposes updates to it out >>> to the individual projects. This would create a situation where >>> projects are out of sync with the master but I think if we froze the >>> master early enough, we could have time to reconcile before release. >>> 3) We continue to allow changes in the upper constraints to break >>> individual projects. >>> >>> Are there options that I missed? What is your opinion? In my >>> opinion, gate breakage happens a bit too often and the effect on the >>> community is widespread. I'd like to contain it even a little bit >>> more. >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1533638 >>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/266885/ >>> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/266042/ >> I've only just started to learn about requirements and constraints, so I >> may be misunderstanding. However, >> https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/master/README.rst says: >> >>> For upper-constraints.txt changes >>> >>> If the change was proposed by the OpenStack CI bot, then if the >>> change has passed CI, only one reviewer is needed and they should +2 >>> +A without thinking about things. >>> >>> If the change was not proposed by the OpenStack CI bot, and does not >>> include a global-requirements.txt change, then it should be rejected: >>> the CI bot will generate an appropriate change itself. Ask in >>> #openstack-infra if the bot needs to be run more quickly. >> Doesn't that mean that [3] should have been rejected, and hence already >> cover the recent situation? >> >> Neil >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > __________________________________________________________________________ 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