On 10/18/2016 07:20 AM, Wesley Hayutin wrote: > See my response inline. > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Dmitry Tantsur <dtant...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 10/17/2016 11:10 PM, Wesley Hayutin wrote: >> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> The RDO CI team is considering adding retries to our calls to >>> introspection >>> again [1]. >>> This is very handy for bare metal environments where retries may be >>> needed due >>> to random chaos in the environment itself. >>> >>> We're trying to balance two things here.. >>> 1. reduce the number of false negatives in CI >>> 2. try not to overstep what CI should vs. what the product should do. >>> >>> We would like to hear your comments if you think this is acceptable for >>> CI or if >>> this may be overstepping. >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> >>> [1] http://paste.openstack.org/show/586035/ >>> >> >> Hi! >> >> I probably lack some context of what exactly problems you face. I don't >> have any disagreement with retrying it, just want to make sure we're not >> missing actual bugs. >> > > I agree, we have to be careful not to paper over bugs while we try to > overcome typical environmental delays that come w/ booting, rebooting $x > number of random hardware nodes. > To make this a little more crystal clear, I'm trying to determine is where > progressive delays and retries should be injected into the workflow of > deploying an overcloud. > Should we add options in the product itself that allow for $x number of > retries w/ a configurable set of delays for introspection? [2] Is the > expectation this works the first time everytime? > Are we overstepping what CI should do by implementing [1].
IMO, yes, we are overstepping what CI should be doing with [1]. Mostly because we are providing a better UX in CI than an actual user will get. > > Additionally would it be appropriate to implement [1], while [2] is > developed for the next release and is it OK to use [1] with older releases? > However, I think it is ok to implement [1] in CI, if the following are true: 1) There is an in progress bug to make this UX better for non-CI user. 2) For older releases if said bug is deemed inappropriate for backport. > Thanks for your time and responses. > > > [1] http://paste.openstack.org/show/586035/ > [2] > https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-common/blob/master/workbooks/baremetal.yaml#L169 > __________________________________________________________________________ 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