Hi, When it comes to log collection, I strongly believe it should be done post-job in our CI pipeline, not as part of the test case. Users can always collect logs manually regardless of the installer tools they use…
And regarding making it automated in OPNFV after Functest/Yardstick execution, would it make sense to re-use the PDF (Pod Descriptor File)? Otherwise, we are duplicating config files like pod.yaml or new files with information about the servers… @Jack: is there a possibility to include login information in the PDF (user, password, path to private key, …) of the nodes already deployed? Regards, Jose > On 12 Oct 2017, at 03:50, xudan (N) <xuda...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Srikanth, > > I have one question. Are the paths of all these log files constant for > different environment (Apex, Fuel and commercial deployments)? > If all paths for different deployments are the same, then using config file > to login and getting files can work. > If not, there will be some errors even though it can login with the config > file. > > One more question, what logs do SDNVPN get from all nodes? Are they useful > for users? If not, can we have an option to disable it? > > Thanks > Dan Xu > > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> > [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>] On Behalf Of limingjiang > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 9:24 AM > To: Srikanth Vavilapalli > Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing > installer dependent information in the test tools > > Hi Srikanth, > > Yardstick can use a global pod.yaml for test cases. > Since each test case default use the “pod.yaml” located in > “/etc/yardstick/pod.yaml”. so if you put “pod.yaml” here, it can apply to > each test case. > The picture you show below is how yardstick test suite customize the input > parameters, so it also support each test case with different “pod.yaml” > if you give each test case different “pod.yaml” > > BR, > Rex > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > <image001.png> > + Mingjiang Li (Rex) Mobile: +86 13761275017 > + Shanghai Institute, Huawei > + No. 2222, Xinjinqiao Road, Pudong, Shanghai, 201206, P.R.China > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > 发件人: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> > [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>] 代表 Srikanth Vavilapalli > 发送时间: 2017年10月12日 9:03 > 收件人: Jose Lausuch; Georg Kunz > 抄送: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > 主题: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing > installer dependent information in the test tools > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. > > So if Yardstick based approach is the preferred one, then I am thinking of > extending the existing Deployment Factory class with a new generic INSTALLER > type (something like “config-file” or so) which will provide the same > interface as other adapters (ApexAdapter, FuelAdapter…etc), but instead reads > from the a configured pod.yaml file to provide Node information. Plz let me > know if you see any issues with this approach. > > One quick question on Yardstick: Looks like Yardstick accepts the custom > pod.yaml file on a per test case basis as shown in the below example. Can it > also accept a global pod.yaml file that can be applied to all or a group of > test cases. > - > > file_name: opnfv_yardstick_tc043.yaml > > constraint: > > installer: xxx > > pod: xxx-pod1 > > task_args: > > xxx-pod1: '{"pod_info": "etc/yardstick/.../pod.yaml", > > "host": "node1.LF","target": "node2.LF"}' > > > Thanks > Srikanth > > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> > [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>] On Behalf Of Jose Lausuch > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 10:45 AM > To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com <mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>> > Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing > installer dependent information in the test tools > > Hi, > > I would vote for having something similar to Yardstick [1] but centralized in > Releng with an easy python lib that enables functions like SCP things to/from > the deployed nodes. > > For your third point, log collection shouldn’t be done at test case level. It > should be performed by CI after running the test tools, otherwise you can a > false negative when running those test on non-OPNFV installers. > > Regards, > Jose > > [1] > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opnfv/yardstick/master/etc/yardstick/nodes/fuel_virtual/pod.yaml > > <https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opnfv/yardstick/master/etc/yardstick/nodes/fuel_virtual/pod.yaml> > > > On 11 Oct 2017, at 18:08, Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com > <mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Just to highlight this, from a Dovetail/CVP perspective, the important aspect > is that there are no dependencies on OPNFV-specific resources/lib in order to > be able to run test cases against commercial non-OPNFV deployments. > > Having to write an adapter for a particular commercial deployment before you > can run Dovetail is obviously not really an option. So, for tests which > require SSH/SCP access, we need to think about... > If the adapter can be parameterized, so that we can make it a configuration > option, e.g., specifying login credentials, source and target directories, > etc., similarly to Yardstick. > Reuse what Yardstick is using? > If the test case be parameterized such that it does not attempt to gather > logs if used for certification? (limited use, of course) > … > > Cheers > Georg > > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org> > [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>] On Behalf Of Jose Lausuch > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:40 PM > To: Beierl, Mark <mark.bei...@dell.com <mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com>> > Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing > installer dependent information in the test tools > > Hi, > > With regards to Functest, you can run it on any OpenStack deployment as long > as you provide a proper RC file and meet the requirements on the jumphost > (docker, connectivity to the deployment, …). > > However, in some cases, some test cases from feature projects require SSH > access to the deployment and to make things centralized, the deployment > handler was created [1]. This is a library that allows users to get the > number of nodes from the deployment, functions to SCP things from the nodes > and some other utils. The bad part of it is that it only supports Apex, Fuel > and OSA for now… unless someones volunteers to write the other adapters for > joid, mcp, compass osa.. This library might be used to extract the desired > logs after Functest/Yardstick runs in CI to place them in artifact repo and > post-analize. > > Regards, > Jose > > [1] https://git.opnfv.org/releng/tree/modules/opnfv/deployment > <https://git.opnfv.org/releng/tree/modules/opnfv/deployment> > > > > > On 11 Oct 2017, at 16:23, Beierl, Mark <mark.bei...@dell.com > <mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com>> wrote: > > Hello, > > StorPerf very much relies on knowledge of the installer to gather information > about the block storage underlay. For example, the number of Ceph nodes, or > even Ceph vs. LVM, is very relevant to the final report. I also wish there > were an installer agnostic method of collecting this information as right now > I keep that code in the ci/daily.sh and other scripts. > > With the new releng repository being created, perhaps it is time to start > moving some of the installer specific code there? I also see that being of > benefit when adding XCI support, as technically that would be yet another > type of installer. > > Regards, > Mark > > Mark Beierl > SW System Sr Principal Engineer > Dell EMC | Office of the CTO > mobile +1 613 314 8106 <tel:1-613-314-8106> > mark.bei...@dell.com <mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com> > > On Oct 11, 2017, at 02:25, xudan (N) <xuda...@huawei.com > <mailto:xuda...@huawei.com>> wrote: > > Hi Srikanth, > > As I know, some Yardstick test cases also need to login nodes. Yardstick uses > a file providing all the login information. > You can refer to > https://github.com/opnfv/yardstick/tree/master/etc/yardstick/nodes > <https://github.com/opnfv/yardstick/tree/master/etc/yardstick/nodes> which > gives some examples. > Hope this will help you. > > BR > Dan Xu > > From: Srikanth Vavilapalli [mailto:srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com > <mailto:srikanth.vavilapa...@ericsson.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 12:28 PM > To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > Cc: Tim Irnich; xudan (N) > Subject: [functest] [sdnvpn] Proposal for removing installer dependent > information in the test tools > > Hi > > I am looking into Jira ticket “SDNVPN-181 > <https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/SDNVPN-181>: Function "gather_logs" restricts > to Apex and Fuel”, which raises concerns on having installer dependent logic > in the sdnvpn repo. The issue is, at the end of the sdnvpn test execution, we > are invoking gather_logs() utility which internally tries to gather the > information about all the OpenStack nodes based on the configured > INSTALLER_TYPE in order to run the fetch_logs.sh script on the target > OpenStack nodes > (https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=sdnvpn.git;a=blob;f=sdnvpn/lib/utils.py;h=ad0714ea9dd40ee8305cd17e42695f0176e88328;hb=HEAD#l215 > > <https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=sdnvpn.git;a=blob;f=sdnvpn/lib/utils.py;h=ad0714ea9dd40ee8305cd17e42695f0176e88328;hb=HEAD#l215>) > > So, the jira ticket proposes to accept all the needed information about the > OpenStack controllers, compute nodes and the associated username, keys…etc. > in a file format such that these tests can also be run on OPNFV based > commercial products deployed with their custom deployment tools. > > So in general, in the test tools, is there any need to have awareness of what > installers being used when we all care about the target OpenStack node IPs, > associated attributes and jumphost IP (in some cases)? > > I would like to get the community opinion here. Appreciate your inputs. > > Thanks > Srikanth > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > <https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss> > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > <https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss> > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > <https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss>
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
