RE: [VOTE] git workflow

[Raja Pullela]

If we are using "Development" branch as a shadow branch for "Stable" - is not 
worth going that route because the existing automation may not find all the 
issues.  As a result, "Stable" is not completely protected from breakage or 
failure.

"Stable" should have the last stable released code.
"Development" should be the release in progress and not a shadow branch for 
"Stable"
There should be merges from "Stable" to "Development"  if there are any 
HOTFIX/Maintenance releases that get released from "Stable" before the 
"Development"/Release in progress goes out
After QA completes testing, "Development" should get into "Stable"
Following the "development" merge into "Stable", cut a "Release" Branch
Any final bug fixes that are absolutely necessary before the Release, will get 
fixed on the "Release" Branch
Release software from the "Release" Branch
After Release, "Release" Branch goes into "Stable"
From then onwards, "Stable" will have the new Release code 

A similar approach was discussed in the wikis/blogs shared by Rajani and Sheng.

Thanks,
Raja
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 2:03 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: [VOTE] git workflow

I am not for grand proposals so I don't agree that we should first make an 
inventory of all problems. The idea that we are going to do CI on a staging 
branch I take for a fact for the moment. Given that I would like to propose 
that we:


work on a 'development' branch.
merge on a nightly basis to a stable branch given the status of 'development' 
is 'passing'
branch release branches as 'x.y' from 'stable'
merge them back to 'stable' when stable and tag them as 'x.y.z'.
branch from 'x.y.z' when support branches need to be made as 'x.y' again do not 
merge those back in principle but keep those around for users to play with and 
because 'stable' and 'develop' continue 

Whether we use gitflow is irrelevant in this. What other changes we do as well. 
i.e. git pull instead of review board, using ci on 'development' or other 
branches.

Is this good enough for a vote?

regards,
Daan


On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Rohit Yadav  wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On 07-Aug-2014, at 9:22 am, Leo Simons  wrote:
>
>> On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:40 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi 
>>  wrote:
 (Like most of the internet...) I strongly believe using cherry 
 picks as the basic tool for (release) branch management is one of 
 the worst choices you can make.

 But. Please. Can. We. Just. Stop. Cherry. Picking!!! :-D [1]

>>> [Animesh] Leo I don't mind moving to merging branches rather than 
>>> cherry-picking for technical reasons, but I am not sure cherry-picking is 
>>> to blame entirely. Using it all the time caused the pain.
>>
>> Yes, I completely agree with that! It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, in fact the 
>> joke at the [1] reference...
>>
>>> [1] ... Using 'git cherry-pick' when there are actual cherries to 
>>> actually pick is fully endorsed by LSD Enterprises LTD.
>>> Picking things other than cherries voids warranty. ...
>>
>> ...tries to make the same point. I really should stop trying to be 
>> funny! More seriously,
>>
>>
>> Use distributed version control.
>> Commit early and often. Push often enough.
>> Strive for idempotent commits.
>> Write good commit messages.
>> Ask and give review liberally.
>> Keep history though rewriting some of it is ok.
>> Branch pre-emptively, except when you are sure you don’t need to.
>> Rebase when it is safe to do so.
>> Merge deliberately to combine branches.
>> Stabilize a branch before you merge from it.
>> Merge from the more stable onto the less stable branches.
>> Pick cherries from a less stable branch you won’t merge.
>> Know your tools.
>> Know when to break the rules.
>
> Very well said. May I add a solution to the cherry-picking problem, use a 
> baseline protocol:
>
> 1. Once a release branch is cut out, all the committers and contributors 
> “should” only work on release branch only. Only the new feature development 
> and its enhancements/bugfixes should continue to land on master directly or 
> merged from their respective branches.
>
> 2. The RMs or developers keep merging the release branch with fast forward 
> only, this way we don’t have to cherry-pick from master to release branch but 
> instead master gets all the good stuff from release branch and the release 
> branch gets “more attention”.
>
> 3. If we somehow can reduce the release cycle timeline/length, the divergence 
> will be less causing less conflicts/issues when following 1 and 2 above.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards.
>
>>
>>
>> happy hacking,
>>
>>
>> Leo
>>
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
> M. +41 779015219 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
>
>
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related 
> services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & 
> Build
> CSForge – rapid Ia

RE: [VOTE] git workflow

[Raja Pullela]

Daan,  

+1 for having stable master branch wherein we bring only tested "development" 
branches into master.  
-1 against having a shadow branches to stable/master and pushing changes into 
stable based on just CI test runs.  I agree it is better than what we have 
currently.  But does not solve/address the stability issue completely.

Thanks,
Raja
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 2:46 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Raja,

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Raja Pullela  wrote:
> If we are using "Development" branch as a shadow branch for "Stable" - is not 
> worth going that route because the existing automation may not find all the 
> issues.  As a result, "Stable" is not completely protected from breakage or 
> failure.
>
> "Stable" should have the last stable released code.
> "Development" should be the release in progress and not a shadow branch for 
> "Stable"
> There should be merges from "Stable" to "Development"  if there are 
> any HOTFIX/Maintenance releases that get released from "Stable" before the 
> "Development"/Release in progress goes out After QA completes testing, 
> "Development" should get into "Stable"
> Following the "development" merge into "Stable", cut a "Release" 
> Branch Any final bug fixes that are absolutely necessary before the 
> Release, will get fixed on the "Release" Branch Release software from 
> the "Release" Branch After Release, "Release" Branch goes into "Stable"
> From then onwards, "Stable" will have the new Release code

I could read your response both as a +1 and as a counter proposal.
What is your point? We do not protect our users against breakage completely now 
and we will not in the future. Is your point that we should only change to 
something if that completely protects us from all failure?

> A similar approach was discussed in the wikis/blogs shared by Rajani and 
> Sheng.
Yes, and...

can we,
> work on a 'development' branch.
> merge on a nightly basis to a stable branch given the status of 'development' 
> is 'passing'
> branch release branches as 'x.y' from 'stable'
> merge them back to 'stable' when stable and tag them as 'x.y.z'.
> branch from 'x.y.z' when support branches need to be made as 'x.y' 
> again do not merge those back in principle but keep those around for 
> users to play with and because 'stable' and 'develop' continue 
> 


--
Daan

Re: Review Request 25145: CLOUDSTACK-7425: Fixed "Failed to create network offering due to invalid service Lb"

[Raja Pullela]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/25145/#review51971
---

Ship it!


Ship It!

- Raja Pullela


On Aug. 28, 2014, 9:42 a.m., Gaurav Aradhye wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/25145/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Aug. 28, 2014, 9:42 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack, sanjeev n, Santhosh Edukulla, and 
> SrikanteswaraRao Talluri.
> 
> 
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-7425
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-7425
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Network Offering creation failed because of a space in network offering 
> config data.
> Fixed it.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   tools/marvin/marvin/config/test_data.py ade8657 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25145/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Log:
> test_cleanup_persistent_network_1_true 
> (test_persistent_networks.TestRestartPersistentNetwork) ... === TestName: 
> test_cleanup_persistent_network_1_true | Status :
> SUCCESS ===
> ok
> 
> --
> Ran 1 test in 456.489s
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gaurav Aradhye
> 
>

Re: Review Request 25144: CLOUDSTACK-7439: Fix "Unable to find VM" issue in test_tags.py

[Raja Pullela]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/25144/#review51973
---

Ship it!


Ship It!

- Raja Pullela


On Aug. 28, 2014, 9:33 a.m., Gaurav Aradhye wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/25144/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Aug. 28, 2014, 9:33 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack, Santhosh Edukulla and SrikanteswaraRao Talluri.
> 
> 
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-7439
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-7439
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> The tag creation failed because the VM was expunged.
> Passed expunge=False while destroying VM so that tag is created on destroyed 
> VM.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   test/integration/component/test_tags.py 1e99ac1 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25144/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Log:
> Test creation of tag on stopped vm. ... === TestName: 
> test_22_create_tag_destroyed_vm | Status : SUCCESS ===
> ok
> 
> --
> Ran 1 test in 316.500s
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gaurav Aradhye
> 
>

RE: 4.4 Feature Freeze

[Raja Pullela]

+1 for the 3/28 Feature Freeze.
If we try to close on the Feature Freeze sooner than when we are ready, we will 
end up finding more blockers/criticals and end up spending more time on bug 
fixing.  This could potentially result in moving the RC?
So, bottom line - it is like we pay now or pay later!

-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 10:54 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: 4.4 Feature Freeze

Perhaps we just need to reduce overlap. Most people work on 4.3 until it's out 
the door, I think. Personally, I have a hard time straddling the two during 
this phase.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Ram Ganesh  wrote:
> I agree on the RC process! Few thoughts from my end
>
> - I see a rush of "request to cherry pick 4.3" requests from 
> committers. This may be a burden for an RM. We can simplify it by RM 
> responding to the email with "OK to commit" or "Not ok to commit" email 
> response. This should free up some time for RM to concentrate on other 
> critical issues
> - Between 2 RC cycles we need to have enough time so that 
> other blocker bugs are identified and we finalize only these need to 
> be fixed in the next RC cycle. What we found is new blocker issues are 
> raised during every RC cycle. Also we need to take a hard look at the 
> bug raised during these RC cycle and do a reality check if these are 
> actually blocker bugs or can be fixed in one of our maintenance 
> builds\cycles
>
> If my memory serves better during 4.1 release we had an opposite 
> problem wherein we though developers moved on with 4.2 release and 
> thereby impacting the quality of 4.1 release. I would say we should be 
> flexible with our dates but definitely not way off the radar
>
> Thanks,
> RamG
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co]
>> Sent: 27 February 2014 08:52
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: 4.4 Feature Freeze
>>
>> I don't see not moving the freeze date as a penalty.  If a feature 
>> doesn't make the current deadline, it moves to the next release, 
>> which is still a few months away. For significant issues, it's not 
>> uncommon for us to allow them in late.
>>
>> What we have a stronger need for than shifting a date, by several 
>> orders of magnitude, is understanding why the RC process took so long 
>> and what we can do in the future to make that not so painful.
>>
>> For the record I'm +0 on moving the feature freeze date.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2014, at 7:10 PM, Ram Ganesh  wrote:
>>
>> > I share it too. Many developers in the community went out of their 
>> > way to get a cleaner RC and thereby impacting their feature 
>> > development efforts. We shouldn't be penalizing them with this 2 
>> > week's feature freeze schedule
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > RamG
>> >
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
>> >> Sent: 27 February 2014 03:00
>> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> >> Subject: RE: 4.4 Feature Freeze
>> >>
>> >> Mike I share your opinion most of us have been pretty much on 4.3 
>> >> until now, and pushing out the release seems reasonable. As I 
>> >> called out in earlier mail the feature proposal date was not 
>> >> called out for
>> >> 4.4 and as such giving little extra room seems reasonable.
>> >>
>> >> Animesh
>> >>
>> >>> -Original Message-
>> >>> From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com]
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:29 AM
>> >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: 4.4 Feature Freeze
>> >>>
>> >>> I think we're having this discussion after every release because 
>> >>> we're beginning to realize that a four-month release cycle has 
>> >>> not been very realistic for us yet.
>> >>>
>> >>> The main issue I encounter is our month-long RC cycle where I 
>> >>> spend a bunch of time validating the RC and (during that 
>> >>> timeframe) less time developing for the next release as I had initially 
>> >>> planned.
>> >>>
>> >>> Perhaps instead of extending the cycle we could consider ways to 
>> >>> actually meet the schedule on a consistent basis. That would be 
>> >>> fine, as
>> >> well.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Hugo Trippaers 
>> >>> 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>>  -1 on postponing the feature freeze. We are having this 
>>  discussion after every release, however we agreed to do a 4 
>>  month cycle so let's stick
>> >>> to it.
>> 
>>  If there are important features that are currently being 
>>  developed but might not make this cut-off date we should discuss 
>>  that separately, but as a point of principle lets stick to the 
>>  release schedule as
>> >> proposed.
>> 
>> 
>>  Cheers,
>> 
>>  Hugo
>> 
>> 
>>  On 26 feb. 2014, at 15:23, Tracy Phillips 
>>  
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> > +1 to Daan.
>> >
>> > Tracy Phillips
>> 

Looking for test folks on the community!

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

Can you please respond if you are actively involved or looking get involved in 
testing 4.4 Release?

Thanks,
Raja

RE: Looking for test folks on the community!

[Raja Pullela]

Thank you John, Paul, Alex, Hugo and Wilder for your responses!

The reasons behind my ask was:
1) Early (as early as Feature/Code Freeze date) involvement of test folks in 
testing a release or 4.4 in particular!  
2) To find out people who are testing and interested in testing the release
3) Find out the (from test perspective) functional areas or Areas of Interest 
to the community members and can/will look at ?

That said, @Paul,  
I agree with you that we cannot certify software using DevCloud and we are not! 
However, the procedure you have identified is a "Release Test Procedure" for 
the RC and not the Test Pass Criteria.
"Test Pass Criteria" is different from the "Release Test Procedure" though...  
Hope you agree with me?

Thanks,
Raja
-Original Message-
From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co] 
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:45 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Looking for test folks on the community!

Raja - curious why you're asking?

On Feb 26, 2014, at 10:00 PM, Raja Pullela  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Can you please respond if you are actively involved or looking get involved 
> in testing 4.4 Release?
> 
> Thanks,
> Raja
> 

SystemVM templates process is failing

[Raja Pullela]

Hi

We are trying to build a system for generating System Templates.  In that the 
build process is failing in the middle - right around setting up openswan.
Can you please let me know if there is a way to fix this?

Thanks,
Raja

Correct/Good build log: 
http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/cloudstack-4.2-systemvm/10/consoleFull
Failure is at:
Setting up libgmp10:i386 (2:5.0.5+dfsg-2) ...
Setting up openswan (1:2.6.37-3) ...
ipsec_setup: Starting Openswan IPsec 2.6.37...

Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
kernel:[  294.758084] Oops:  [#1] SMP

Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
kernel:[  294.759841] Process cryptomgr_test (pid: 17701, ti=cd9fe000 
task=c57d5280 task.ti=cd9fe000)

Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
kernel:[  294.759841] Stack:

Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
kernel:[  294.759841] Call Trace:

Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
kernel:[  294.759841] Code: b6 cb 31 cd 0f b6 48 01 c1 e5 05 88 5c 24 17 8b 5c 
24 34 31 cd 0f b6 08 c1 e5 05 31 cd 6b ed 21 c1 ed 05 89 ef 81 e7 ff 3f 00 00 
<8b> 0c bb 3b 4c 24 08 72 74 39 c8 74 70 89 c3 29 cb 81 fb ff bf

Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
kernel:[  294.759841] EIP: [] _lzo1x_1_do_compress+0x66/0x2e2 SS:ESP 
0068:cd9ffc94

Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
kernel:[  294.759841] CR2: d0e89250

RE: SystemVM templates process is failing

[Raja Pullela]

Wow.. nice, thanks Leo!

-Original Message-
From: Leo Simons [mailto:lsim...@schubergphilis.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:52 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Ian Southam
Subject: Re: SystemVM templates process is failing

Hi Raja,

Ian ran into this a few days ago. Great to see you reproduce it :). I don't 
remember the exact details, but there's something about openswan that is broken 
for some kernels on some platforms in debian 7.6.

Upgrading to debian 7.7 fixes it:

https://github.com/schubergphilis/cloudstack/commit/6273b5cf8ce6e0bdc4c5f50b3542a661294dabe1


cheers,


Leo

On Oct 23, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Raja Pullela  wrote:

> Hi
> 
> We are trying to build a system for generating System Templates.  In that the 
> build process is failing in the middle - right around setting up openswan.
> Can you please let me know if there is a way to fix this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Raja
> 
> Correct/Good build log: 
> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/cloudstack-4.2-systemvm/10/consoleFull
> Failure is at:
> Setting up libgmp10:i386 (2:5.0.5+dfsg-2) ...
> Setting up openswan (1:2.6.37-3) ...
> ipsec_setup: Starting Openswan IPsec 2.6.37...
> 
> Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
> kernel:[  294.758084] Oops:  [#1] SMP
> 
> Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
> kernel:[  294.759841] Process cryptomgr_test (pid: 17701, ti=cd9fe000 
> task=c57d5280 task.ti=cd9fe000)
> 
> Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
> kernel:[  294.759841] Stack:
> 
> Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
> kernel:[  294.759841] Call Trace:
> 
> Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
> kernel:[  294.759841] Code: b6 cb 31 cd 0f b6 48 01 c1 e5 05 88 5c 24 17 8b 
> 5c 24 34 31 cd 0f b6 08 c1 e5 05 31 cd 6b ed 21 c1 ed 05 89 ef 81 e7 ff 3f 00 
> 00 <8b> 0c bb 3b 4c 24 08 72 74 39 c8 74 70 89 c3 29 cb 81 fb ff bf
> 
> Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
> kernel:[  294.759841] EIP: [] _lzo1x_1_do_compress+0x66/0x2e2 
> SS:ESP 0068:cd9ffc94
> 
> Message from syslogd@ahha at Oct 23 10:14:43 ...
> kernel:[  294.759841] CR2: d0e89250
> 
> 
> 

RE: weird db setup issue

[Raja Pullela]

Sebastien,

Can you check your MySQL version ?  Is it 5.6.22 or above ?
There was an issue with MySQL 5.6.22 - where in the SQL file mentioned returns 
an error, runs fine on MySQL 5.6.21 and below.
You can downgrade/install the MySQL that is packaged with 4.5.0 OR update the 
SQL to include the "use cloud" before the SQL command.

Raja
-Original Message-
From: Erik Weber [mailto:terbol...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:53 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: weird db setup issue

This happens on a new installation of Citrix CloudPlatform 4.5.0 as well.

If anyone has time, we should check if this happens on ACS 4.5 and fix it

--
Erik

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Sebastien Goasguen  wrote:

>
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 9:20 AM, Rohit Yadav  wrote:
>
> > Hi Sebastien,
> >
> > Which build/version of CloudStack are you using?
>
> this is 4.3.1 from packages, ubuntu 14.04
>
> but I think it's an issue with my setup. that schema file has not 
> changed in more than a year and is the same in all branches.
>
> I will keep investigating.
>
> adding use cloud (like Erik mentioned) solved the issue.
>
> >
> >> On 05-Dec-2014, at 7:22 pm, Erik Weber  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Sebastien Goasguen 
> >> 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I am trying to dockerize the whole cloudstack installation process.
> >>>
> >>> When running cloudstack-setup-database I hit this weird issue:
> >>>
> >>> Detected local IP address as 172.17.0.25, will use as cluster
> management
> >>> server node IP[ OK ]
> >>> Preparing /etc/cloudstack/management/db.properties
> >>> [ OK ]
> >>> Applying /usr/share/cloudstack-management/setup/create-database.sql
> >>>[ OK ]
> >>> Applying /usr/share/cloudstack-management/setup/create-schema.sql
> >>>[ OK ]
> >>> Applying
> >>> /usr/share/cloudstack-management/setup/create-database-premium.sql
>  [ OK
> >>> ]
> >>> Applying
> /usr/share/cloudstack-management/setup/create-schema-premium.sql
> >>>
> >>> We apologize for below error:
> >>> ***
> >>> Encountering an error when executing mysql script
> >>> --
> >>> 
> >>> table:
> >>> /usr/share/cloudstack-management/setup/create-schema-premium.sql
> >>>
> >>> Error:
> >>> ERROR 1046 (3D000) at line 285: No database selected
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Does this ring a bell to anyone ? why would the first schema be 
> >>> created successfully and not create-schema-premium ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> - the create-database* scripts doesn't need a selected database
> >> - the create-schema.sql script starts by selecting the database 
> >> (use
> cloud;)
> >>
> >> create-schema-premium.sql doesn't have the same selection at start, 
> >> and
> I'm
> >> no sql guru but it could be a foreign key or something else without 
> >> an explicit schema that fails.
> >> you should probably be able to workaround it by adding a "use cloud;"
> early
> >> in the create-schema-premium.sql file
> >>
> >> that's my two cent.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Erik
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rohit Yadav
> > Software Architect, ShapeBlue
> > M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> > Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
> >
> >
> >
> > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related
> services
> >
> > IaaS Cloud Design & Build<
> http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> > CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment 
> > framework
> > CloudStack Consulting
> > CloudStack Software Engineering<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> > CloudStack Infrastructure Support<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> > CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
> >
> > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are
> intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. 
> Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do 
> not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related 
> companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you 
> must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show 
> it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this 
> email in error.
> Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue 
> Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated 
> under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda 
> is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from 
> Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The 
> Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue 
> Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>
>

RE: weird db setup issue

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Erik, don't believe an issue was created on mysql... still needs to be 
investigated to why the SQL script will work on one version and not on the 
other?  You can downgrade to 5.6.21 and try it again, in case you are 
interested?

Raja  

-Original Message-
From: Erik Weber [mailto:terbol...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 12:40 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: weird db setup issue

I can't answer for Sebastien, but in my case it was 5.6.22 (installed from 
mysql-community repo on centos7).

Do you have a link to the mysql bug?

--
Erik

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Raja Pullela 
wrote:

> Sebastien,
>
> Can you check your MySQL version ?  Is it 5.6.22 or above ?
> There was an issue with MySQL 5.6.22 - where in the SQL file mentioned 
> returns an error, runs fine on MySQL 5.6.21 and below.
> You can downgrade/install the MySQL that is packaged with 4.5.0 OR 
> update the SQL to include the "use cloud" before the SQL command.
>
> Raja
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Weber [mailto:terbol...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:53 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: weird db setup issue
>
> This happens on a new installation of Citrix CloudPlatform 4.5.0 as well.
>
> If anyone has time, we should check if this happens on ACS 4.5 and fix 
> it
>
> --
> Erik
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Sebastien Goasguen 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 5, 2014, at 9:20 AM, Rohit Yadav 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sebastien,
> > >
> > > Which build/version of CloudStack are you using?
> >
> > this is 4.3.1 from packages, ubuntu 14.04
> >
> > but I think it's an issue with my setup. that schema file has not 
> > changed in more than a year and is the same in all branches.
> >
> > I will keep investigating.
> >
> > adding use cloud (like Erik mentioned) solved the issue.
> >
> > >
> > >> On 05-Dec-2014, at 7:22 pm, Erik Weber  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Sebastien Goasguen 
> > >> 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I am trying to dockerize the whole cloudstack installation process.
> > >>>
> > >>> When running cloudstack-setup-database I hit this weird issue:
> > >>>
> > >>> Detected local IP address as 172.17.0.25, will use as cluster
> > management
> > >>> server node IP[ OK ]
> > >>> Preparing /etc/cloudstack/management/db.properties
> > >>> [ OK ]
> > >>> Applying /usr/share/cloudstack-management/setup/create-database.sql
> > >>>[ OK ]
> > >>> Applying /usr/share/cloudstack-management/setup/create-schema.sql
> > >>>[ OK ]
> > >>> Applying
> > >>> /usr/share/cloudstack-management/setup/create-database-premium.s
> > >>> ql
> >  [ OK
> > >>> ]
> > >>> Applying
> > /usr/share/cloudstack-management/setup/create-schema-premium.sql
> > >>>
> > >>> We apologize for below error:
> > >>> ***
> > >>> Encountering an error when executing mysql script
> > >>> 
> > >>> --
> > >>> 
> > >>> table:
> > >>> /usr/share/cloudstack-management/setup/create-schema-premium.sql
> > >>>
> > >>> Error:
> > >>> ERROR 1046 (3D000) at line 285: No database selected
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Does this ring a bell to anyone ? why would the first schema be 
> > >>> created successfully and not create-schema-premium ?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> - the create-database* scripts doesn't need a selected database
> > >> - the create-schema.sql script starts by selecting the database 
> > >> (use
> > cloud;)
> > >>
> > >> create-schema-premium.sql doesn't have the same selection at 
> > >> start, and
> > I'm
> > >> no sql guru but it could be a foreign key or something else 
> > >> without an explicit schema that fails.
> > >> you should probably be able to workaround it by adding a "use cloud;"
> > early
> > >> in the create-schema-premium.sql file
> > >>
> > >> that's my two cent.
> > >>
> > >> --
&g

RE: [ACS4.2.1] request for QA update

[Raja Pullela]

Minor update on the ACS 4.2 to 4.2.1 upgrade.
From: Sudha Ponnaganti
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 9:18 PM
To: Abhinandan Prateek; CloudStack Dev
Cc: Raja Pullela
Subject: RE: [ACS4.2.1] request for QA update

Hi All,

Scope Status [1]

-  Rayees has posted automation results earlier BVTs and regressions 
were done in citrix lab on 4.2.1 branch

-  Tested a few regressions around VMWare as there are couple of issues 
got fixed in last phases of 4.2

-  250 issues got fixed for 4.2.1


Blockers for RC

-  We still have 7 Criticals/blockers that need to be fixed in JIRA ( 
Use query Fixed version 4.2.1)

-  Upgrade paths need to be closed

o   4,2 ( citrix is trying this out - will report back Wednesday) Update: ACS 
4.2 to 4.2.1 upgrade path testing is complete.

o   4.1.1 ( Daan will report back by Friday)

o   2.2.14 > ( Lucian has been trying this path)

Good to have for RC

-  There are 80 Resolved defects. Would help if community can close 
these ( you can use query fix version 4.2.1, Status Resolved )

[1] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Cloudstack+4.2.1+Maintenance+Release
[2] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/4.2.1+Automation+Result

From: Abhinandan Prateek
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 1:56 AM
To: CloudStack Dev
Cc: Raja Pullela; Sudha Ponnaganti
Subject: [ACS4.2.1] request for QA update

Sudha/Raja,

   You guys have been doing a QA on 4.2.1 for quite some time now.
It would be good for community to know in general how the 4.2.1 branch is 
coming off in terms of quality.

-abhi

need access to QA folder

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

Can I please get me +W access to the QA folder under CWIKI.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Home

Thanks,
Raja

Re: Modern template hosting

[Raja Pullela]

Hi will, 

I believe, we didn’t get to close ‘getting a mirror on Apache’ because we 
needed someone on the Apache Infra side to close this. BTW, 
cloudstack-apt.get.eu (I think Nux manages this?) has all/most of the content.  
Once we can close on the Apache mirror for hosting the content, I can help 
assist getting the content there.

For now, we have replicated the download.cloud.com content to 
‘s3.download.accelerite.com’.
Also, we are working on a set of steps/procedure to help with this change.  I 
will update everyone in about a week’s time on the details.

Best,
Raja Pullela
Engineering Team,
Accelerite, 2055 Laurelwood Road,
Santa Clara, CA, 95054

On 2/24/17, 11:23 PM, "williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of Will Stevens" 
 wrote:

unfortunately the template mirror conversation got caught up in details and
nobody took the lead on implementing a solution.

citrix has been pinging me every couple months to say 'dude, we need to
remove the dependency on download.citrix.com', but i have not had the
cycles to get in and solve the problem.  the shutdown of that is imminent
right now, so we need to solve it asap.



*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer

<https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Paul Angus 
wrote:

> Hi Nathan,
>
> Ideally, if you put the template location in (or use a template defined
> in)  test_data.py then the actual location can be overridden by anyone
> testing.
>
> For Trillian, we've copied all of the templates that people have define to
> a local repo and then replace the URLs in test_data.py to reduce bandwidth
> use and download times.
>
> Ie:
>
> "bootableIso":
> {
> "displaytext": "Test Bootable ISO",
> "name": "testISO",
> "bootable": True,
> "ispublic": False,
> "url": "{{ marvin_images_location
> }}/TinyCore-current.iso",
> "ostype": 'Other Linux (64-bit)',
> "mode": 'HTTP_DOWNLOAD'
> },
>
>
>
> I thought that we had come up with a solution for download.cloud.com, by
> having a mirrorlist hosted in Community Apache 'space' with anyone able to
> out themselves forward as a mirror.
> But I must admit I lost track of whether anyone made the requisite changes
> in code
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Will Stevens
> Sent: 24 February 2017 16:30
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Modern template hosting
>
> this is a hard questions.  in general, we should be setting up a mirror on
> some cloudstack/apache domain and then mirror to other provided templates.
>
> we MUST come up with a solution to deprecate 'download.cloud.com', that
> is going to be going away any day now.
>
> i don't know the right way to solve this to be honest, but if you have
> ideas, i am willing to help.
>
>
>
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
>
> <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Nathan Johnson  wrote:
>
> > So not to re-open a can of worms, but I’m in a situation where I need
> > to come up with a Marvin component test that depends on a template
> > based on a kernel that’s relatively new, i.e., newer than Centos 5.3 /
> Ubuntu 10.04 .
> > I see openvm.eu has a suitable template (Ubuntu 16.0.4 for KVM), but
> > from looking at the thread "Migrating CloudStack content from
> > download.cloud.com” it looks like there is resistance to using this at
> > least for hosting system vm templates over concerns of neutrality.
> > Would this be suitable for a component test?  If not, what is a “blessed”
> > template location?
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Nathan Johnson
> > R&D Engineer
> >
> >
> >
> > 618 Grassmere Park Drive, Suite 12
> > Nashville, TN 37211
> > General Office: 615-312-6000
> >
> > website | blog | support
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>






DISCLAIMER
==
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the 
property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, 
distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in 
error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. 
Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for 
virus infected mails.

Re: Modern template hosting

[Raja Pullela]

sorry Wido… forgot… thank you for correcting!

On 2/27/17, 4:50 PM, "Wido den Hollander"  wrote:
> Op 27 februari 2017 om 7:17 schreef Raja Pullela 
> :
> 
> 
> Hi will, 
> 
> I believe, we didn’t get to close ‘getting a mirror on Apache’ because we 
> needed someone on the Apache Infra side to close this. BTW, 
> cloudstack-apt.get.eu (I think Nux manages this?) has all/most of the 
> content.  Once we can close on the Apache mirror for hosting the content, I 
> can help assist getting the content there.
> 

cloudstack.apt-get.eu is managed by me.

> For now, we have replicated the download.cloud.com content to 
> ‘s3.download.accelerite.com’.
> Also, we are working on a set of steps/procedure to help with this change.  I 
> will update everyone in about a week’s time on the details.
> 

Thanks! Although we should probably refrain for using a non-generic domain name 
in any of the source.

Wido

> Best,
> Raja Pullela
> Engineering Team,
> Accelerite, 2055 Laurelwood Road,
> Santa Clara, CA, 95054
> 
> On 2/24/17, 11:23 PM, "williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of Will Stevens" 
>  wrote:
> 
> unfortunately the template mirror conversation got caught up in details and
> nobody took the lead on implementing a solution.
> 
> citrix has been pinging me every couple months to say 'dude, we need to
> remove the dependency on download.citrix.com', but i have not had the
> cycles to get in and solve the problem.  the shutdown of that is imminent
> right now, so we need to solve it asap.
> 
> 
> 
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
> 
> <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>
> 
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Paul Angus 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Nathan,
> >
> > Ideally, if you put the template location in (or use a template defined
> > in)  test_data.py then the actual location can be overridden by anyone
> > testing.
> >
> > For Trillian, we've copied all of the templates that people have define to
> > a local repo and then replace the URLs in test_data.py to reduce bandwidth
> > use and download times.
> >
> > Ie:
> >
> > "bootableIso":
> > {
> > "displaytext": "Test Bootable ISO",
> > "name": "testISO",
> > "bootable": True,
> > "ispublic": False,
> > "url": "{{ marvin_images_location
> > }}/TinyCore-current.iso",
> > "ostype": 'Other Linux (64-bit)',
> > "mode": 'HTTP_DOWNLOAD'
> > },
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought that we had come up with a solution for download.cloud.com, by
> > having a mirrorlist hosted in Community Apache 'space' with anyone able to
> > out themselves forward as a mirror.
> > But I must admit I lost track of whether anyone made the requisite changes
> > in code
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Paul Angus
> >
> > paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> > www.shapeblue.com
> > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> > @shapeblue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On
> > Behalf Of Will Stevens
> > Sent: 24 February 2017 16:30
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Modern template hosting
> >
> > this is a hard questions.  in general, we should be setting up a mirror on
> > some cloudstack/apache domain and then mirror to other provided templates.
> >
> > we MUST come up with a solution to deprecate 'download.cloud.com', that
> > is going to be going away any day now.
> >
> > i don't know the right way to solve this to be honest, but if you have
> > ideas, i am willing to help.
> >
> >
> >
> > *Will STEVENS*
> > Lead Developer
> >
> > <https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Nathan Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > > So not to re-open a can of worms, but I’m in a situation where I need
> > > to come up with a Marvin component test that depends on a template
> > > based on a kernel that’s relatively new, i.e., newer than Centos 5.3 /
> > Ubuntu 10.04 .
> > > I see openvm.eu has a suitable template (Ubuntu 16.0.4 for KVM), but
> > > from looking at the thread "Migrating CloudStack content from
> > > download

Re: GSoC projects

[Raja Pullela]

Hi, 

As I understand from the GSoC page, Student volunteers now have to register and 
propose a project.  But, there is a one issue, couple of student volunteers 
that I know wanted some help and direction on choosing/proposing the projects.  
I have asked them to join our Devlist.  If we can make our list of potential 
projects public on our wiki, it will be easy for them to pick up and work?  

Best,
Raja
Engineering Team,
Accelerite, 2055 Laurelwood Road,
Santa Clara, CA, 95054

On 3/2/17, 3:54 AM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:

Syed, At the time I started the thread we had 4 days. We can still try to have 
some student in under the apache umbrella but I’m not sure if we have much 
chance, they need to specifically pick our project (for which no proposals are 
out).

On 01/03/17 19:30, "Syed Ahmed"  wrote:

Hi Guys,

I am trying to understand the process here. Are there deadlines by which we
have to submit the proposals? Who are the participants? Do we have a wiki
page? If not, I can create one.

Thanks,
-Syed


On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Sergey Levitskiy <
sergey.levits...@autodesk.com> wrote:

> I like it very much!
>
>



daan.hoogl...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 






DISCLAIMER
==
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the 
property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, 
distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in 
error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. 
Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for 
virus infected mails.

Re: GSoC projects

[Raja Pullela]

Thanks Syed!

On 3/3/17, 3:52 AM, "Syed Ahmed"  wrote:

I've talked to folks here and I don't think I can give write access to you
for the Wiki. I will create a google form and lets' use that instead.

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:58 PM, sachin patil  wrote:

> @syed I tried to edit the Candidates column but couldn't do it. I think
> there are some restrictions to edit the page. Please have a look into it. I
> would like to work for CLOUDSTACK-8629
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8629>
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Syed Ahmed  wrote:
>
> > I have found the following links to be useful. Please read them. This
> > concerns both mentors and students
> >
> > https://community.apache.org/gsoc.html
> > https://community.apache.org/guide-to-being-a-mentor.html
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Syed Ahmed  wrote:
> >
> > > So here is the wiki
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/
> > > Google+Summer+of+Code+2017
> > >
> > > I have added the person who created the ticket on Jira as the potential
> > > mentor for now. Please add anything that I might have missed. The
> > > candidates should add their names against the projects they want to
> work
> > on
> > > and we can figure out ties later.
> > >
> > > In the mean time, we need to figure out what is the deal with ASF and
> > GSoC
> > > and how we can get ourselves in.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Syed
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Daan Hoogland <
> > > daan.hoogl...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Syed,
> > >>
> > >> On 02/03/17 16:49, "Syed Ahmed"  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> It looks like there is interest in GSoC. I saw some posts on Slack
> > >> about
> > >> someone asking for help. I can't find the conversation now but
> there
> > >> are
> > >> people definitely interested.
> > >>
> > >> I can create a Wiki page of all the proposals till now and then we
> > can
> > >> direct people to that page and they can add their name to whatever
> > >> project
> > >> they want to work on.
> > >> Tell them they should try mailing dev@ as well or irc/slack
> > >>
> > >> I know that ASF is registerd as one of the organisations in GSoC.
> > >> Does this
> > >> mean we will participate under the ASF banner? If yes then how
> does
> > >> ASF
> > >> choose candidates from the different projects? Who can I contact
> to
> > >> get
> > >> more information?
> > >> We would only ever participate under apache flag. I am not sure what
> the
> > >> internal process is but am interested  so let me dig into markmail.
> > >>
> > >> Then there are student proposals which can be submitted
> > >> independently. I
> > >> believe we don't have worry about this one as these are filled
> > >> independently by students.
> > >>
> > >> I will update this post once I have the wiki page with proposed
> > >> projects.
> > >> :+1:
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> -Syed
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:40 AM, sachin patil <
> > sachin931...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hello, Projects can be selected from student proposals as well
> > >> which start
> > >> > on 20th march '17 there are a couple of JIRA tickets tagged as
> > >> gsoc2017 and
> > >> > gsoc2016 which can be taken up by students. You can have a look
> at
> > >> this
> > >> > <https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/organizations/541694517
> > >> 3135360/>.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Daan Hoogland <
> > >> > daan.hoogl...@shapeblue.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > It is public as far as I know. These are the jira tickets
> > >> labelled GSoC,
> > >> > > there are GSoC as well for several years and there are
> > >> GSOC. I
> > >> > > don’t think every suitable ticket is indeed labelled but
> that’s
> &

Re: Welcoming Wido as the new ACS VP

[Raja Pullela]

congratulations Wido!  All the best with your new responsibilities!

cheers! 
Raja Pullela
Engineering, Accelerite, www.accelerite.com 
2055 Laurelwood Road,
Santa Clara, CA, 95054

On 3/16/17, 10:30 PM, "Will Stevens"  wrote:

Hello Everyone,
It has been a pleasure working with you as the ACS VP over the past year.
I would like to say Thank You to everyone who has supported me in this role
and have supported the project as a whole.

It is my pleasure to announce that Wido den Hollander has been voted in to
replace me as the Apache Cloudstack VP in our annual VP rotation.  Wido has
a long history with the project and we are happy welcome him into this new
role.

Be sure to join us at CCC in Miami [1] so we can initiate him correctly
over many beers.  :)

Cheers,

*Will Stevens*

​[1] http://us.cloudstackcollab.org/​





DISCLAIMER
==
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the 
property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, 
distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in 
error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. 
Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for 
virus infected mails.

Re: Welcoming Wido as the new ACS VP

[Raja Pullela]

Thank you Will for all the great work!  

cheers!
Raja Pullela
Engineering Team,
Accelerite, 2055 Laurelwood Road,
Santa Clara, CA, 95054

On 3/16/17, 10:30 PM, "Will Stevens"  wrote:

Hello Everyone,
It has been a pleasure working with you as the ACS VP over the past year.
I would like to say Thank You to everyone who has supported me in this role
and have supported the project as a whole.

It is my pleasure to announce that Wido den Hollander has been voted in to
replace me as the Apache Cloudstack VP in our annual VP rotation.  Wido has
a long history with the project and we are happy welcome him into this new
role.

Be sure to join us at CCC in Miami [1] so we can initiate him correctly
over many beers.  :)

Cheers,

*Will Stevens*

​[1] http://us.cloudstackcollab.org/​





DISCLAIMER
==
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the 
property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, 
distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in 
error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. 
Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for 
virus infected mails.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Wei Zhou and Rene Moser are now PMC members

[Raja Pullela]

congratulations Rene and Wei!! 

cheers!
Raja Pullela
Engineering Team,
Accelerite, www.accelerite.com, 
2055 Laurelwood Road,
Santa Clara, CA, 95054

On 3/17/17, 12:36 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:

dear devs,

The PMC has invited Rene Moser and Wei Zhou over the last couple of weeks to 
join their ranks. Both have accepted. Please join me in congratulating both, 
thanking them for their contributions so far and encouraging them to show their 
best for Apache CloudStack ;) \o/ ...

regards,


daan.hoogl...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 






DISCLAIMER
==
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the 
property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, 
distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in 
error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. 
Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for 
virus infected mails.

Re: [README][Quarterly Call] - CloudStack Development, Blockers and Community Efforts

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Ilya, I would like to attend and will send the details on community efforts 
- collaborate on testing/running BVTs/Regressions tests. 

Best,
Raja
Engineering, Accelerite,
2055 Laurelwood Road,
Santa Clara, CA, 95054


>
>-Original Message-
>From: ilya [mailto:ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com] 
>Sent: 18 August 2017 01:30
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [README][Quarterly Call] - CloudStack Development, Blockers and 
>Community Efforts
>
>Hi All,
>
>I'd like to pick this thread back up and see if you are joining. As a 
>reminder, proposed date is September 6th 2017, time 9AM PST.
>
>If you are, please kindly respond. If you have things to discuss - please use 
>the outline below:
>
>  1) Development efforts - 60 minutes
>Upcoming Features you are working on developing (to avoid collision 
> and maintain the roadmap).
>  Depending on number of topics we need to discuss - time for each 
> topic will be set accordingly.
>  If you would like to particiapate - please respond to this thread 
> and adhere to sample format below:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>2) Release Blockers - 20 minutes
>  If you would like to participate - please respond to this thread and 
> adhere to sample format below:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>3) Community Efforts - 10+ minutes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Thanks
>ilya
>
>On 8/1/17 10:55 AM, ilya wrote:
>> Hi Team
>> 
>> Proposed new date for first quarterly call
>> 
>> September 6th 2017, time 9AM PST.
>> 
>> This is a month out and hopefully can work with most folks. If it does 
>> not work with your timing - please consider finding delegates and/or 
>> representatives.
>> 
>> Regards
>> ilya
>> 
>> On 7/20/17 6:11 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>>>
 Op 20 juli 2017 om 14:58 schreef Giles Sirett :


 Hi Ilya
 Sorry, I should have highlighted that User Group meeting clash 
 before

 Under normal circumstances, I would say: its futile trying to 
 coordinate calendars with such a broad audience - there will always 
 be some people not available , just set a regular date, keep it 
 rolling (build and they will come)

 However, for the first call, there will be at least Wido, Mike, 
 Paul, Daan, me and probably a lot more PMC members not available 
 because of the user group meeting

>>>
>>> +1 I will be present!
>>>
>>> Wido
>>>
 To keep it simple, I'd therefore say, go with the following day 
 (Friday 18th) or the next Thursday (24th )

 I'm not even going to respond to Simons pub/phone suggestion.

 Kind regards
 Giles

 giles.sir...@shapeblue.com
 www.shapeblue.com
 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
   
  


 -Original Message-
 From: ilya [mailto:ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com]
 Sent: 19 July 2017 22:25
 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
 Subject: Re: [README][Quarterly Call] - CloudStack Development, 
 Blockers and Community Efforts

 The date conflict is noted - please provide range of alternative dates.

 Thanks,
 ilya

 On 7/19/17 12:35 PM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> I thought about that, but sometimes you can barely hear the person 
> next to you there let alone on a phone. :-)
>
>> On Jul 19, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Simon Weller  
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...unless you take a conference phone to the pub 😉
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> From: Tutkowski, Mike 
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 2:19 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: us...@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [README][Quarterly Call] - CloudStack Development, 
>> Blockers and Community Efforts
>>
>> Hi Ilya,
>>
>> I think this is a good idea and thanks for the proposed breakdown of the 
>> contents of the call.
>>
>> One thing to note about August 17 is that there is a CloudStack Meetup 
>> in London on that day. The call would be happening around 5 PM local 
>> time (during part of the meetup or during the after-meetup activities). 
>> As such, I believe the participants of that meetup probably won't be 
>> attending the call.
>>
>> Perhaps we should consider another day?
>>
>> Talk to you later,
>> Mike
>>
>>> On Jul 19, 2017, at 12:59 PM, ilya  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Devs and Users
>>>
>>> Hope this message finds you well,
>>>
>>> As mentioned earlier, we would like to start with quarterly calls 
>>> to discuss the direction of cloudsta

SystemVM documentation

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Rohit,

Can you please point to the documentation you may have for creating the 4.11 
SystemVMs ?

Best,
Raja

DISCLAIMER
==
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the 
property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, 
distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in 
error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. 
Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for 
virus infected mails.

Re: SystemVM documentation

[Raja Pullela]

Great... thank you Marc-Aurele and Rohit!

On 2/16/18, 8:39 PM, "Rohit Yadav"  wrote:

Raja, as Marc-Aurele has shared refer to the README in tools/appliance; the 
build process has been greatly simplified and only requires packer on a KVM box 
with bunch of utilities for exporting appliances in various formats.


- Rohit

<https://cloudstack.apache.org>



____
From: Raja Pullela 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 2:11:22 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: SystemVM documentation

Hi Rohit,

Can you please point to the documentation you may have for creating the 
4.11 SystemVMs ?

Best,
Raja

DISCLAIMER
==
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is 
the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only 
for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, 
print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. 
Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for 
virus infected mails.

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 

RE: CloudStack Days 2015

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Sebastien, I am open to reviewing papers.

Thanks,
Raja

-Original Message-
From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 7:56 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: CloudStack Days 2015


On Feb 11, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Karen Vuong  wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> 
> 
> In 2015, five CloudStack Days events will be held across the globe. 
> Each one-day event will feature morning plenary sessions and afternoon 
> breakout sessions in user and developer tracks. Here are the dates and 
> websites for each event:
> 
> 
> 
> CloudStack Days Austin 2015 (April 16th):
> http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/cloudstack-austin
> 
> CloudStack Days Tokyo 2015 (June 2nd):
> http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/cloudstack-tokyo
> 
> CloudStack Days Seattle 2015 (August 20th):
> http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/cloudstack-seattle
> 
> CloudStack Days Budapest 2015 (October 1st):
> http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/cloudstack-budapest
> 
> CloudStack Days Dublin 2015 (October 8th):
> http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/cloudstack-dublin
> 
> 
> 
> The Call for Participation (CFP) will be opened soon.
> 
> 

Karen, thanks for this, this is great. And thanks to Citrix for being diamond 
sponsor again.
The website shows cloud foundry as platinum sponsor, is that correct ?

Also with regard to the program, we need to establish a program committee, or 
at least send instructions to this list on how someone can help review paper 
submission.

thanks

-sebastien

> 
> CloudStack Days will replace the CloudStack Collaboration Conferences 
> (which were normally held twice a year in North America and Europe). 
> The format of the event has changed in order to hold more events 
> reaching a larger number of users and developers.
> 
> 
> 
> Help promote:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to tweet: http://ctt.ec/p31L2 - Save the Date: April 16.
> @CloudStackDays is coming to Austin, TX! Co-located with #ApacheCon 
> clds.co/1ChqRHL
> 
> 
> 
> Click to tweet: http://ctt.ec/b52c0 - Five @CloudStackDays 2015 across 
> the globe! Check out #CloudStack Days Tokyo on June 2 co-located with 
> #CloudOpen clds.co/1vEPpxN
> 
> 
> 
> Click to tweet: http://ctt.ec/y73As - Five @CloudStackDays 2015 across 
> the globe! #CloudStack Days Seattle will be on Aug 20 co-located w/ 
> #CloudOpen clds.co/1yhZwTt
> 
> 
> 
> Click to tweet: http://ctt.ec/oNEi5 - Save the date: Oct 1. 
> @CloudStackDays is coming to Budapest! Co-located w/ #ApacheCon 
> clds.co/1zWHpqb
> 
> 
> 
> Click to tweet: http://ctt.ec/cela5 - Save the Date: Oct 8. 
> @CloudStackDays is coming to Dublin, Ireland! Co-located with 
> #CloudOpen clds.co/1KJFV7y
> 
> 
> 
> Sponsorship Prospectus:
> 
> 
> 
> The sponsorship prospectus for CloudStack Days 2015 is available here:
> http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/cloudstack-dublin/sponsor
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> Karen

access to Jenkins

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

Can  someone please give me access to the http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/ ?
There is a build script that is having an issue and would like to check it out.

Thanks,
Raja

RE: access to Jenkins

[Raja Pullela]

Thank you Rajani!  Yes... saw one of the jobs was had an "out of memory" issue 
- system related.  
Will see what I can do? 

-Original Message-
From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:50 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: access to Jenkins

Any help on jenkins is appreciated. created a user for you.
I tried to fix the master build jobs. But, I didnt see any issues with the job 
as such. Failures are system failures.



~Rajani

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Raja Pullela 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Can  someone please give me access to the 
> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/ ?
> There is a build script that is having an issue and would like to 
> check it out.
>
> Thanks,
> Raja
>
>

RE: Thoughts on CloudStack while starting as new VP

[Raja Pullela]

Very nice, Congratulations Sebastien!  
Looking forward to collaborate on list of things you have identified!

Raja

-Original Message-
From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:46 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; us...@cloudstack.apache.org; 
market...@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Thoughts on CloudStack while starting as new VP

Dear members of the CloudStack community,

Last week the Apache Software Foundation board unanimously voted a resolution 
to make me the new VP of Apache CloudStack. This came after a unanimous vote of 
the CloudStack PMC and is regular process of our community as described in our 
bylaws.

I am excited to take on this new role after two amazing VP (Chip and Hugo) 
since CloudStack came to the ASF. Many thanks to them and especially Hugo for 
the work he has done in the past year.

The ASF is setup so that the governance of a project really belongs to the 
community itself. CloudStack is what we all make it to be, we all have equal 
footing when time comes to develop the code, create events, take decisions and 
so on. As VP I do not have a special say in our direction. This governance 
model is in stark contrast with other open source project that follow more of a 
benevolent dictator model. I mention this as a bit of disclaimer and to 
re-enforce the fact that while I have views about what we should do, they are 
my personal views and that they do not represent any sorts of official 
roadmaps, and that anyone is welcome to disagree :)

In Budapest, we had a great conference. Chip and I showed several CloudStack 
use cases. Our user base is strong with over 300 production deployments. Our 
community is large and diverse with 2000 people on the mailing lists, but we 
need to keep advocating for CloudStack, make it an even greater software and 
grow our community. At the very least this helps us learn from each other, 
better our own skills and our employers IT infrastructure. At the very best AWS 
switches to CloudStack :)

So here are some food for thoughts that will hopefully excite you, want to get 
engage, talk about CloudStack and bring on board your friends:

On the code:
-
- Keep improving quality, remove dead code, cleanup JIRA, cleanup Review Board 
We have successfully moved to GitHub pull requests, we should stop using RB
- Simplify the dev process and adopt a new committing system to avoid 
regressions at all costs.
We have talked about this for a long time but have failed had doing something 
concrete. It is time.
- Remove the AWSAPI (there is a branch without it right now), we should merge 
it in master I am going to push for IP clearance of ec2stack and gstack to get 
them under ASF governance.
- Several Cloud Providers have unveiled new CloudStack UI, maybe it’s time we 
do the same.
- Solidify the testing infrastructure, keep Jenkins builds running
- Brainstorm on the future of CloudStack and IaaS in general. What should 
CloudStack be in 10 years ?
While CloudStack is what it is now, nothing prevents us to re-architect, 
re-think, re-code it within the current framework.
- Finally, package the mgt server and the KVM agent as Docker containers Docker 
is a great portability mechanism. We should embrace Docker as a packaging tool 
(first) and provide container images for our mgt server (at a minimum).
This could become a type of release artifact that could be easily continuously 
built.


On the ecosystem:
-
We have a really strong ecosystem. From configuration management tools, API 
wrappers, PaaS plugins etc.
We need to feature our ecosystem clearly on our website, support it and keep on 
growing it as new technologies emerge.

Things that come to mind:
- Push to get our Ansible module into the Ansible core
- Publish “official” chef recipes to deploy CloudStack
- Identify and publish “official” Puppet recipes
- Build Docker native templates (coreOS, rancherOS, Snappy, Atomic)
- Finally cleanup cloud-init support for CloudStack, this is preventing us from 
having upstream centOS templates.
- Publish playbooks/recipes to deploy workloads on CloudStack (think Hadoop, 
Spark, Kubernetes)
- Work actively on up to date integration with CloudFoundry

On documentation:
-
I and couple others successfully moved our docs to the Read The Docs service. 
This was a first great move but we need to finish the job.
We need to rethink our documentation tree, maybe merge all guides in one, 
correct the docs, create a new theme for it.
This is an easy area to contribute to if you are using cloudstack. Just send a 
pull request (click on the top right ribbon).
If you don’t know how, then it will teach you how to use github, great exercise.
We also need to routinely build the multi languages support.

On Events:
-
We have at least four great events coming in 2015. Austin, Seattle, Tokyo and 
Dublin.
Let’s meet at one of those events.
Let’s submit a

RE: [DISCUSS] Stop using Review Board

[Raja Pullela]

+1 for GitHub...

Some of us are already using GH and any new review requests on RB, reviewers 
should ask for the owners to post them to GH.
Otherwise, there is no easy way to stop people from using RB ?  

-Original Message-
From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 12:52 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Stop using Review Board


> On Mar 30, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Kishan Kavala  wrote:
> 
> +1 for GitHub
> 
> Can we do a one-time migration of all open RB requests to GH and make RB 
> read-only?
> 

I don’t think we can do an automatic migration. We should all check RB in the 
coming days, try to close the one we can and contact the authors we know.

I would like to keep this DISCUSS open till next friday, since it’s a 
relatively big change. At that time, I will check with infra if we can make RB 
read only.


> -Original Message-
> From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 10:33 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Stop using Review Board
> 
> +1
> 
> ~Rajani
> 
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Mike Tutkowski < 
> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Sebastien Goasguen 
>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> Since GitHub pull requests have been enabled for cloudstack, we have 
>>> closed 127 commits.
>>> 
>>> I believe this is a nicer interface, one that folks are used to when 
>>> contributing to other open source projects.
>>> 
>>> In the meantime, we still have 73 open reviews on Review Board
>>> 
>>> https://reviews.apache.org/
>>> 
>>> * I propose that we stop using RB all together, and remove any links 
>>> to
>> it
>>> from our website and README.
>>> 
>>> A few of us have tried to close some of the reviews by pinging the
>> authors
>>> already.
>>> 
>>> * My second proposition is that we write a comment in all reviews:
>>> 
>>> “Thanks for the patch, the cloudstack community has decided to stop 
>>> using Review Board in favor of github pull request.
>>> You can see  to learn how to submit a pull request to cloudstack.
>>> Could you move your patch to a PR ?
>>> Without response from you we will close this review within 7 days.
>>> "
>>> 
>>> There is good contribution guidelines in our docs README:
>>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-docs
>>> 
>>> -Sebastien
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
>> o: 303.746.7302
>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>> *™*
>> 

local automation ran on master has few issues

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

I was running automation on master and came across few issues.  Please see the 
following issues in JIRA
CLOUDSTACK-8381
CLOUDSTACK-8382
CLOUDSTACK-8383
Can someone look at these bugs ?  hopefully resolving these will help BVTs 
passing at 100% on Master!
I am planning to run the same on 4.5.1 just to compare!

Thanks,
Raja

RE: local automation ran on master has few issues

[Raja Pullela]

Abhi,  following are the details. Few of the cases were failing because of the 
error "unable to start vm".  Once that works, then few more tests will run.

best,
Raja

On BasicKVM
Test Result (21 failures / ±0)
integration.smoke.test_affinity_groups.TestDeployVmWithAffinityGroup.test_DeployVmAntiAffinityGroup
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_iso.TestDeployVMFromISO.test_deploy_vm_from_iso
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_root_resize.TestDeployVM.test_00_deploy_vm_root_resize
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_with_userdata.TestDeployVmWithUserData.test_deployvm_userdata
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_with_userdata.TestDeployVmWithUserData.test_deployvm_userdata_post
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestDeployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_firstfit
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestDeployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_userconcentrated
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestDeployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_userdispersing
integration.smoke.test_multipleips_per_nic.TestDeployVM.test_nic_secondaryip_add_remove
integration.smoke.test_regions.TestRegions.test_createRegion
:setup
:setup
:setup
:setup
:setup
:setup
:setup
:setup
:setup
integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm
integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm

On BasicXS 
Test Result (19 failures / ±0)
integration.smoke.test_affinity_groups.TestDeployVmWithAffinityGroup.test_DeployVmAntiAffinityGroup
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_iso.TestDeployVMFromISO.test_deploy_vm_from_iso
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_with_userdata.TestDeployVmWithUserData.test_deployvm_userdata
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_with_userdata.TestDeployVmWithUserData.test_deployvm_userdata_post
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestDeployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_firstfit
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestDeployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_userconcentrated
integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestDeployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_userdispersing
integration.smoke.test_multipleips_per_nic.TestDeployVM.test_nic_secondaryip_add_remove
integration.smoke.test_regions.TestRegions.test_createRegion
:setup
:setup
:setup
:setup
:setup
:setup
:setup
integration.smoke.test_vm_snapshots.TestSnapshots.test_01_test_vm_volume_snapshot
:setup
:setup


-Original Message-
From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 5:26 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: local automation ran on master has few issues

Raja,

Can you add the marvin tests name(or path) that are failing in automation 
tickets.
Otherwise there is no way to reproduce these.

-abhi

> On 13-Apr-2015, at 4:53 pm, Raja Pullela  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was running automation on master and came across few issues.  Please 
> see the following issues in JIRA 
> CLOUDSTACK-8381<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8381>
> CLOUDSTACK-8382<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8382>
> CLOUDSTACK-8383<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8383>
> Can someone look at these bugs ?  hopefully resolving these will help BVTs 
> passing at 100% on Master!
> I am planning to run the same on 4.5.1 just to compare!
>
> Thanks,
> Raja
>

Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services

IaaS Cloud Design & 
Build<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1lccDHFIGYtZQ9e5hf-NkY5lrAzCfRd6QD31FsPHZ9oiSZkRuOJ3GIdTS90oSfrZo-sfXnYZDQKbk_kRBSRmIHTQyn2a4J81TWZ1KsgvBNqGy36cdQO2xMRXQBqmt47ebne5ADE-4ugCUHl7T9h2hBxFKqJ9nYIq44JBGH3q3FXM/http%3A%2F%2Fshapeblue.com%2Fiaas-cloud-design-and-build%2F%2F>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment 
framework<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1aFFC6f9stVim1iheIY7KDGb4LX4ihBshtBiVWZAPljDA_t8omwiEZ_Ww-HMu_fqmmpR6sSE1FTgQl5mDEDuSe80wcUpth3Nx9sGD00kHlvijzdtG5kAmpCJgYvuBnV0x3_c6LZZ8Yn7wJ3G5y-o5hJ-3h5iQQnALOK5RRT_vht4/http%3A%2F%2Fshapeblue.com%2Fcsforge%2F>
CloudStack 
Consulting<http://secure-web.cisco.com/17niAPT_oVvnfCe-Dko3khAT3JetY3cFqS3cIQInhmhipFyxiB-DQu1duk6n6d4t5ltfC9kqhz8io2byjSdOHeys1CmPEon9DfapNGzQMA9biUkU11r5M_0TI1GMJg9hG8tggI1bAa7fwXC58w1mghg1pUE4qFQAMdxqnzVr3WgM/http%3A%2F%2Fshapeblue.com%2Fcloudstack-consultancy%2F>
CloudStack Software 
Engineering<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1niwEecKUmUtE5CNk0_HN3EGwhkkH9JCErmODAiyRx8J2ljw8bdUQodtit2m2g2Xrgc6hIyvftmNQQwtGlBn6L2U_hi_gPJqSS-rbJ1EeXcphORsA9TIDl9Ts8FKHIyIT4BF_-Bsnxq358nSSfhx12jc4VrH5tDCj-lUrkxqqFrg/http%3A%2F%2Fshapeblue.com%2Fcloudstack-software-engineering%2F>
CloudStack Infrastructure 
Support<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1x9bnSEZ0J02S9jdKS3_AfVibNf3_O6yIta_GbJJmAVbw70HeImMg9RLxoRfmEfdMWcm-0deSARvE_3DkblrPylqQy1tSgZ11kdE-aVUjbgJLjwjpheEvoON5S70ZSeLsRyQcaEDFQvmg_Baw-COeKzVAqfzjeCCIadcT5tw2PCg/http%3A%2F%

RE: local automation ran on master has few issues

[Raja Pullela]

Abhi,  I will add more information to the tickets with the specific test case 
failure. 

Best,
Raja
-Original Message-
From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:58 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: local automation ran on master has few issues

Raja,

   In the automation testing framework, is there a way to link errors in 
management server logs with a failed test ?
Like checking timestamp of the failed test and then looking at the timestamps 
in the MS logs.

The reason is that with just a exception as in this 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8383; it will be difficult to 
reproduce, unless something very obvious is broken.

But if we know that say “test_deploy_vm_from_iso” (for example) has broken it 
then it becomes easier to reproduce and fix.
Try to make test name a necessary item when filing automation tickets.

> On 13-Apr-2015, at 5:59 pm, Raja Pullela  wrote:
>
> Abhi,  following are the details. Few of the cases were failing because of 
> the error "unable to start vm".  Once that works, then few more tests will 
> run.
>
> best,
> Raja
>
> On BasicKVM
> Test Result (21 failures / ±0)
> integration.smoke.test_affinity_groups.TestDeployVmWithAffinityGroup.t
> est_DeployVmAntiAffinityGroup 
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_iso.TestDeployVMFromISO.test_deploy_v
> m_from_iso 
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_root_resize.TestDeployVM.test_00_depl
> oy_vm_root_resize 
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_with_userdata.TestDeployVmWithUserDat
> a.test_deployvm_userdata 
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_with_userdata.TestDeployVmWithUserDat
> a.test_deployvm_userdata_post 
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestD
> eployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_firstfit
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestD
> eployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_userconcentrated
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestD
> eployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_userdispersing
> integration.smoke.test_multipleips_per_nic.TestDeployVM.test_nic_secon
> daryip_add_remove 
> integration.smoke.test_regions.TestRegions.test_createRegion
> :setup
> :setup 
> :setup
> :setup 
> :setup 
> :setup 
> :setup 
> :setup 
> :setup 
> integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm
> integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm
>
> On BasicXS
> Test Result (19 failures / ±0)
> integration.smoke.test_affinity_groups.TestDeployVmWithAffinityGroup.t
> est_DeployVmAntiAffinityGroup 
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_iso.TestDeployVMFromISO.test_deploy_v
> m_from_iso 
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_with_userdata.TestDeployVmWithUserDat
> a.test_deployvm_userdata 
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_with_userdata.TestDeployVmWithUserDat
> a.test_deployvm_userdata_post 
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestD
> eployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_firstfit
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestD
> eployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_userconcentrated
> integration.smoke.test_deploy_vms_with_varied_deploymentplanners.TestD
> eployVmWithVariedPlanners.test_deployvm_userdispersing
> integration.smoke.test_multipleips_per_nic.TestDeployVM.test_nic_secon
> daryip_add_remove 
> integration.smoke.test_regions.TestRegions.test_createRegion
> :setup
> :setup 
> :setup 
> :setup
> :setup 
> :setup 
> :setup 
> integration.smoke.test_vm_snapshots.TestSnapshots.test_01_test_vm_volu
> me_snapshot :setup 
> :setup
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 5:26 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: local automation ran on master has few issues
>
> Raja,
>
> Can you add the marvin tests name(or path) that are failing in automation 
> tickets.
> Otherwise there is no way to reproduce these.
>
> -abhi
>
>> On 13-Apr-2015, at 4:53 pm, Raja Pullela  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was running automation on master and came across few issues.  
>> Please see the following issues in JIRA 
>> CLOUDSTACK-8381<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8381
>> > 
>> CLOUDSTACK-8382<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8382
>> > 
>> CLOUDSTACK-8383<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8383
>> > Can someone look at these bugs ?  hopefully resolving these will 
>> help BVTs passing at 100% on Master!
>> I am planning to run the same on 4.5.1 just to compare!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> R

RE: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Gaurav Nandkumar Aradhye

[Raja Pullela]

Congratulations Gaurav!  

-Original Message-
From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:10 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Gaurav Nandkumar Aradhye

congratulations Gaurav..

~Rajani

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Erik Weber  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> 
> wrote:
>
> > The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache CloudStack has 
> > asked Gaurav Aradhya to become a committer and we are pleased to 
> > announce that they have accepted.
> >
> > Being a committer allows many contributors to contribute more 
> > autonomously. For developers, it makes it easier to submit changes 
> > and eliminates the need to have contributions reviewed via the patch 
> > submission process. Whether contributions are development-related or 
> > otherwise, it is a recognition of a contributor's participation in 
> > the project and commitment to the project and the Apache Way.
> >
> > Please join me in congratulating Gaurav
> >
> >
> Well deserved, welcome!
> Congratulations :-)
>
> --
> Erik
>

RE: OVM3 test failures

[Raja Pullela]

the builds are failing due to ovm3 audit failures.  
https://builds.apache.org/job/cloudstack-marvin/1723/console 

Daan, not sure if the change you were planning to do will address this issue?

Raj
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 7:47 PM
To: Roger Crerie
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Funs Kessen
Subject: Re: OVM3 test failures

Shame on me, oh the public humiliation. will fix and submit, thanks

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Roger Crerie  wrote:
> Tests passed after I fixed the audit failures.  Good on you :).
>
> Roger
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Crerie [mailto:roger.cre...@hds.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:51 AM
> To: Daan Hoogland
> Cc: Funs Kessen; dev
> Subject: RE: OVM3 test failures
>
> I'm getting audit failures now.  See attached text file.  I'll fix them in 
> code and run again but wanted to alert you to this.
>
> Roger
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:48 AM
> To: Roger Crerie
> Cc: Funs Kessen; dev
> Subject: Re: OVM3 test failures
>
> You should be able to do 'git pull' in your working dir, from the shell.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Roger Crerie  wrote:
>> Having never pulled anything from cloudstack but the master how would I go 
>> about getting this fix?
>>
>> Roger
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Funs Kessen [mailto:fozzielumpk...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Funs Kessen
>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 7:21 AM
>> To: Daan Hoogland
>> Cc: Roger Crerie; dev
>> Subject: Re: OVM3 test failures
>>
>> Nah you are smart enough, it’s just that I was lazy and did a search and 
>> replace and then noticed I broke something and fixed it with another commit.
>>
>> thanks!
>>
>>> On 27 Mar 2015, at 12:12, Daan Hoogland  wrote:
>>>
>>> /me not being smart enough to use pull requests.
>>>
>>> I am pulling it now.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Funs Kessen  wrote:
 Hi Daan,

> On 27 Mar 2015, at 11:58, Daan Hoogland  wrote:
>
> Funs, I commented on it, I think it has a typo in it.
> Roger, can you apply that patch and test (after looking at my comment)?

 I replied to you, that’s why the pull request contains two commit IDs ;)

>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Funs Kessen  wrote:
>> Hi Daan,
>>
>> Had a fix ready yesterday, but after having slept on it, I crushed the 
>> fix as it was wrong. I’ve fixed it by setting the separator hard, and 
>> not to File.separator.
>>
>> The logic behind is that the Agent runs on Linux and not on Windows so 
>> using File.separator will just break things instead of making it work, 
>> as the code should not be platform independent but specifically for the 
>> Agent.
>>
>> I’ve got pull request #133 open which should resolve the issues on 
>> Windows.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Funs
>>
>>> On 26 Mar 2015, at 21:53, Funs Kessen  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 On 26 Mar 2015, at 21:41, Daan Hoogland  
 wrote:

 On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Funs Kessen  wrote:
> Hi Roger/Daan,
>
> Sorry for coming late to the party, and my apologies in advance!

 that's alright, i learned something about cs;)

>>> Ditto!! :)
>>>
 ...
> The second part of the booboo is in the tests themselves actually as 
> you’ve noticed, so I’ll have to place the File.seperator there too in 
> XenTest.java.
>
> Thanks for reaching out!
>
> @Daan: I can fix it in the ovm3rebase branch so you can pick it out ?

 yeah, that or send me a patch

>>> I’ll get you a patch asap, want to make sure I don’t have to make two =)
>>>
 Don't forget I added to the misery myself by adding
 a4c23b170e4c94d4ed4783b19a051ad8f6c45328

>>> "My friend of misery" ?
>>>
>>> —
>>> =Funs
>>
>> —
>>   =Funs
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>

 —
=Funs

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>>
>>
>> —
>> =Funs
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daan



-- 
Daan

RE: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

[Raja Pullela]

+1 for the "Some people (I'm part of them) are concerned on our current way of 
supporting and back porting fixes to multiple release"
This should be a top priority along with keeping master stable - make sure BVTs 
are passing at 100% all the time.
Also if we can plan/target increasing test/BVT coverage, that will be super!

Thanks,
Raja
-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:35 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

"storage plugin involve changes on Hypervisor code"

I know this is just an example, but at least on KVM side this is no longer 
true. Previously you had to implement a KVM-specific 'StorageAdaptor' that 
would run on the hypervisor, and register that with the agent code, but Mike 
and I added some reflection/annotation that allows for auto-detection of the 
adaptor upon Agent start up, so storage plugins can be completely 
self-contained now. They don't even have to be a part of our code base.

There may be other parts of the code where we can do similar things to decouple 
if we can identify those points.  Ideally, if someone has to modify core code 
to add their plugin it should only be because they are adding some new 
functionality *that core cloudstack needs to be aware of*, and that 
functionality should be added in a way that other plugins can also 
provide/implement it. Otherwise, they can always add new APIs specific to their 
appliance or product and leveraging data from cloudstack's db, all via plugin. 
They can add new global/zone/cluster configs and UI tools via plugin as well.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion  wrote:
> Today during the CloudStackdays  we did a round table about Release 
> management targeting the next 4.6 releases.
>
>
> Quick bullet point discussions:
>
> ideas to change release planning
>
>- Plugin contribution is complicated because often  a new plugin involve
>change on the core:
>   - ex: storage plugin involve changes on Hypervisor code
>- There is an idea of going on a 2 weeks release model which could
>introduce issue the database schema.
>- Database schema version should be different then the application
>version.
>- There is a will to enforce git workflow in 4.6  and trigger simulator
>job on  PullRequest.
>- Some people (I'm part of them) are concerned on our current way of
>supporting and back porting fixes to multiple release (4.3.x, 4.4.x,
>4.5.x). But the current level of confidence against latest release is low,
>so that need to be improved.
>
>
> So, the main messages is that w'd like to improve the release 
> velocity, and release branch stability.  so we would like to propose 
> few change in the way we would add code to the 4.6 branch as follow:
>
> - All new contribution to 4.6 would be thru Pull Request or merge 
> request, which would trigger a simulator job, ideally only if that 
> pass the PR would be accepted and automatically merged.  At this time, 
> I think we pretty much have everything in place to do that. At a first 
> step we would use
> simulator+marvin jobs then improve tests coverage from there.
>
> Please comments :-)

RE: OVM3 test failures

[Raja Pullela]

Cool, thank you for the update! Will check out this in the morning. 

-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 2:10 AM
To: Funs Kessen
Cc: Raja Pullela; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: OVM3 test failures

Funs, so you were not jumping a canon. The problem seems to me to be in the 
jenkins job in context of the marvin module. The tests from
ovm3 themselves do pass. I did some tinkering with jenkins.bac.o and wil keep 
at it to get the red removed from the report page. I saw similar problems in 
jenkins.bac.o and am addressing those now. I will do the builds.a.o job next.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Funs Kessen  wrote:
> Daan,
>
> I can confirm that a fresh checkout of master and a build of marvin 
> after the apidoc works for me too.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Funs
>
>> On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:46, Funs Kessen  wrote:
>>
>> Daan,
>>
>> I did the same, but noticed it’s the cloudstack-marvin plugin, so am 
>> doing it again to figure out what’s going on there to see if I didn’t jump 
>> the gun with my comment.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Funs
>>
>>> On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:35, Daan Hoogland  wrote:
>>>
>>> Funs,Raja,
>>>
>>> I did some more investigation. The issue has no relation to the 
>>> change mentioned by e indeed but neither to the latest commits. It 
>>> runs on my laptop (TM) so I suspect a problem on the jenkins slave 
>>> or an false assumption about the slaves in the tests. We'll need to 
>>> investigate further. I look at other marvin jobs. At first glance 
>>> they all seem to feel. (4.4, 4.5 etc.)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Funs Kessen  wrote:
>>>> Hi Raja,
>>>>
>>>> It seems there is no relation between what Daan was talking about and this 
>>>> problem as far as I can see.
>>>>
>>>> If you revert your last commit I suspect that everything is ok, so we need 
>>>> to figure out what your commit triggers that causes it to fail I guess as 
>>>> prior to that stuff seemed to work (tm).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Funs
>>>>
>>>> PS: Are you on Cloudstack days in Austin per chance, then I could help you 
>>>> figuring out what’s going on.
>>>>
>>>>> On 16 Apr 2015, at 20:38, Raja Pullela  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> the builds are failing due to ovm3 audit failures.
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/cloudstack-marvin/1723/console
>>>>>
>>>>> Daan, not sure if the change you were planning to do will address this 
>>>>> issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Raj
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 7:47 PM
>>>>> To: Roger Crerie
>>>>> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Funs Kessen
>>>>> Subject: Re: OVM3 test failures
>>>>>
>>>>> Shame on me, oh the public humiliation. will fix and submit, 
>>>>> thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Roger Crerie  
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Tests passed after I fixed the audit failures.  Good on you :).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: Roger Crerie [mailto:roger.cre...@hds.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:51 AM
>>>>>> To: Daan Hoogland
>>>>>> Cc: Funs Kessen; dev
>>>>>> Subject: RE: OVM3 test failures
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm getting audit failures now.  See attached text file.  I'll fix them 
>>>>>> in code and run again but wanted to alert you to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:48 AM
>>>>>> To: Roger Crerie
>>>>>> Cc: Funs Kessen; dev
>>>>>> Subject: Re: OVM3 test failures
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should be able to do 'git pull' in your working dir, from the shell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Roger Crerie  
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

RE: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

[Raja Pullela]

Sebastien, I am taking about the tests we have under "test/integration/smoke" 
folder.  
Not sure how the tests run through Travis, will try to understand.
These are tests were run on a local cloudstack env.  

best,
Raja
-Original Message-
From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:14 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management


> On Apr 17, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Raja Pullela  wrote:
> 
> +1 for the "Some people (I'm part of them) are concerned on our current way 
> of supporting and back porting fixes to multiple release"
> This should be a top priority along with keeping master stable - make sure 
> BVTs are passing at 100% all the time.

Raja, which BVT are you talking about ? AFAIK, all current tests run on all 
commits through Travis.

> Also if we can plan/target increasing test/BVT coverage, that will be super!
> 
> Thanks,
> Raja
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:35 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management
> 
> "storage plugin involve changes on Hypervisor code"
> 
> I know this is just an example, but at least on KVM side this is no longer 
> true. Previously you had to implement a KVM-specific 'StorageAdaptor' that 
> would run on the hypervisor, and register that with the agent code, but Mike 
> and I added some reflection/annotation that allows for auto-detection of the 
> adaptor upon Agent start up, so storage plugins can be completely 
> self-contained now. They don't even have to be a part of our code base.
> 
> There may be other parts of the code where we can do similar things to 
> decouple if we can identify those points.  Ideally, if someone has to modify 
> core code to add their plugin it should only be because they are adding some 
> new functionality *that core cloudstack needs to be aware of*, and that 
> functionality should be added in a way that other plugins can also 
> provide/implement it. Otherwise, they can always add new APIs specific to 
> their appliance or product and leveraging data from cloudstack's db, all via 
> plugin. They can add new global/zone/cluster configs and UI tools via plugin 
> as well.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion  wrote:
>> Today during the CloudStackdays  we did a round table about Release 
>> management targeting the next 4.6 releases.
>> 
>> 
>> Quick bullet point discussions:
>> 
>> ideas to change release planning
>> 
>>   - Plugin contribution is complicated because often  a new plugin involve
>>   change on the core:
>>  - ex: storage plugin involve changes on Hypervisor code
>>   - There is an idea of going on a 2 weeks release model which could
>>   introduce issue the database schema.
>>   - Database schema version should be different then the application
>>   version.
>>   - There is a will to enforce git workflow in 4.6  and trigger simulator
>>   job on  PullRequest.
>>   - Some people (I'm part of them) are concerned on our current way of
>>   supporting and back porting fixes to multiple release (4.3.x, 4.4.x,
>>   4.5.x). But the current level of confidence against latest release is low,
>>   so that need to be improved.
>> 
>> 
>> So, the main messages is that w'd like to improve the release 
>> velocity, and release branch stability.  so we would like to propose 
>> few change in the way we would add code to the 4.6 branch as follow:
>> 
>> - All new contribution to 4.6 would be thru Pull Request or merge 
>> request, which would trigger a simulator job, ideally only if that 
>> pass the PR would be accepted and automatically merged.  At this 
>> time, I think we pretty much have everything in place to do that. At 
>> a first step we would use
>> simulator+marvin jobs then improve tests coverage from there.
>> 
>> Please comments :-)

minor issues seen in travis.yml

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

I saw couple of issue in travis.yml -

-  3rd line:  "smoke/smoke/test_reset_vm_on_reboot" - it should be 
"smoke/test_reset_vm_on_reboot"

-  7th line: component/test_acl_isolatednetwork - is listed twice
will be creating a ticket but wanted to inform ahead.

best,
Raja

RE: minor issues seen in travis.yml

[Raja Pullela]

BTW, looks like Abhi updated the file about 6hrs ago.
This was the file - I looked at:  
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/7843a092f51569ba003132bc80f87350b66aa5bf/.travis.yml


-Original Message-
From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:46 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: minor issues seen in travis.yml

On a second look I did not find the issues you shared on 4.5 or master? Did not 
find the first issue, the second one has two tests: 
component/test_acl_isolatednetwork_delete component/test_acl_isolatednetwork  
(both are different with the same prefix).

> On 30-Apr-2015, at 6:12 am, Raja Pullela  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I saw couple of issue in travis.yml -
>
> -  3rd line:  "smoke/smoke/test_reset_vm_on_reboot" - it should be 
> "smoke/test_reset_vm_on_reboot"
>
> -  7th line: component/test_acl_isolatednetwork - is listed twice
> will be creating a ticket but wanted to inform ahead.

Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect, ShapeBlue
M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab



Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services

IaaS Cloud Design & 
Build<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1dJ2NYIErY1q_KyT_353jQ_F3QVcOm-WbLKwBawzIDyr9FFTN3T2d2eenhqtTuSJoJOjNbUZY07ZRoE_2vMnRGYK0LfZXYTXBY9fHvLm6Lw35S3LHSRf3q_MYRc3kE536WF_FxGsHoHvQlYER5J9BBcyWxg5rkZDy61muyiJZDyzMB3nI0X5CVboZh-IbLLxJ/http%3A%2F%2Fshapeblue.com%2Fiaas-cloud-design-and-build%2F%2F>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment 
framework<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1gXfTTXXlDnF6MNlCWIQcfuNx9FzcIE3O-Pe6zYgKMkB6I5t-aat2Kvb6KSmi7NMfnX6JEjIMRypDm98F7_R23vZ1vYaxNNkgFWtVTdqPCMowxxkfk2nPw71t28gCTmWGxu7mMn0OUxEYC95UlbR5T0BUZsJKeQchD57Ul27hwAOZzC2tCUMvG7aFJeNliu9E/http%3A%2F%2Fshapeblue.com%2Fcsforge%2F>
CloudStack 
Consulting<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1241twBKrKrDFmo76N8NUTIH_QYBC39lg39l-S9LJHr9FOiPxcyOTHaV1BhMpGEEMvjFYOVKRxRMzLTTMVNA93pyJkR2mfTdANb2ZlcNcZwHFIlryKE6XoPpoJWZPyrotJV9XGXLZxygCZD1xBgvX6HiGZEi6yRsrpsOUVJERHElLUhwoSMaIUB2p6NbTUMz2/http%3A%2F%2Fshapeblue.com%2Fcloudstack-consultancy%2F>
CloudStack Software 
Engineering<http://secure-web.cisco.com/19VfU-QwR9FxEKuUzkjmY83gBapw1f_PdHJoV5jB53OBW40xFPWBSC6g826cnFlVJaIs-wUeRW9fXPePRS9qV6KUyEV7yfJFGDGPxKf2o6RfW0w1OKF22DzFQKKMmNgy1p5CKVWeGTP05iHkcHurg-rVaaAPWuuWQ4TuxEF23BJAWWPDWvwOgLOlLxVzi82YE/http%3A%2F%2Fshapeblue.com%2Fcloudstack-software-engineering%2F>
CloudStack Infrastructure 
Support<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1XcnuCxbtAfzx6Q4yqkqrEcS72ajk1Hw8I3lP2mP8AwzAp9tU6_qYqkNkw_mGzR7JCAVyLc4dACaKMNN08c3xLpiH32FFYNTWblQODX6epR-eNLQgF2-UBKLs5BJAomr-6Wf_ztd8YVpVTav7jh3f7p2gIn3sK8wTfsBGBchyEAWCRTOhJMLWfHPmLxLRukvO/http%3A%2F%2Fshapeblue.com%2Fcloudstack-infrastructure-support%2F>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training 
Courses<http://secure-web.cisco.com/17Ul4SklQBbwdoPIyFNclM4TJpJKQdatMYc_gKSJLTk1TgJDNCUFuZ0cyCvEeaB4JAhhZK3k4qeh-pcyKJv1GIdgplFcLAZsfzQeLaeUKbHNvr_UX7rWqcliBe-qYHrJdK2uXCqK5WF7Ui1tr6Uudp8mQdlYdQzitv5iksOzhPUATdHbkUICqjg6tAXCNF_xB/http%3A%2F%2Fshapeblue.com%2Fcloudstack-training%2F>

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended 
solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or 
opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the 
intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon 
its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you 
believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company 
incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company 
incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape 
Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is 
operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company 
registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from 
Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.

RE: marvin test cases + travis

[Raja Pullela]

-1 for the time... 
since these tests run independently if we can spawn more threads/vms to bring 
down the run time, that will be good.
Another thing that can be looked at the run only tests in SMOKE folder.   
BTW, more tests in  "SMOKE"  should be added on a continuous basis.

-Original Message-
From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 11:09 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: marvin test cases + travis

-1 on increasing the time
As a reviewer, I would like an immediate response on a pull request. By the 
time I review the code, if CI gives a +1(or -1) I can close the PR then and 
there instead of coming back again to merge.

I would suggest running all the jobs under 30 min and increasing the number of 
parallel jobs as much as possible. we are running 10 jobs now. may be we could 
increase this to 15(dont know if this is possible)

we should aim to run only the smoke tests and not the entire regression suite 
always.

Making the jobs run on containers will speed them up. This needs some work on 
removing the sudo dependency on the jobs (which is required to install some 
additional packages and marvin).

~Rajani

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Abhinandan Prateek < 
abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com> wrote:

> +1 for increased timeouts.
>
> At the moment we get less than 24 commits per day on master. Only a 
> couple on other branches per day.
> We can increase the timeout to upto 70 minutes or more. Will try to 
> ensure that in general a single run does not take more than an hour.
>
> A timeout window slightly higher will ensure that we do not see 
> timeout failures.
>
> > On 30-Apr-2015, at 11:25 pm, Daan Hoogland 
> wrote:
> >
> > Travis is starting to indue the, 'oh,  a timeout again' - blindness 
> > in
> me.
> > Let's put a safe time on it.  A result should mean something and 
> > those
> time
> > out are like the (decreasing) abundance of Jenkins failures.
> >
> > So +1 for increasing the time
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:46 Ian Duffy  wrote:
> >
> >>> Do we need to ask for an increase in run time?
> >>
> >> From my experience I wouldn't say its required however *it would be 
> >> very nice*.
> >> At the moment what we do is create new parallel jobs and balance 
> >> the tests across them so each job is under 50mins.
> >>
> >> Anywho, just my 2c, see what others say/think.
> >>
> >> On 30 April 2015 at 17:34, David Nalley  wrote:
> >>> Do we need to ask for an increase in run time?
> >>> 50 minutes is the OSS default, but the ASF is a paying customer 
> >>> and we can ask for longer timeouts.
> >>>
> >>> --David
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Abhinandan Prateek 
> >>>  wrote:
>  One of the run did timeout. Will balance the runs.
> 
> > On 30-Apr-2015, at 5:59 pm, Abhinandan Prateek <
> >> abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, thanks for checking. I was worried that now some of them 
> > may
> >> start timing out.
> > I have another 10 suites tested, will add them once everything 
> > seems
> >> fine.
> >
> > -abhi
> >
> >
> >> On 30-Apr-2015, at 5:32 pm, Rajani Karuturi 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> after correcting the test file path, its working fine
> >>
> >> https://travis-ci.org/karuturi/cloudstack/jobs/60681263
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ~Rajani
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Rajani Karuturi 
> >>  >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think its due to this commit
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/commit/b941480e0df0bfa3377e797126
> b96cf9b3fbee77
> >>>
> >>> Here, test file name is changed from testname to
> >> [smoke,component]/testname
> >>>
> >>> But, while running each test file in the for loop, it prepends 
> >>> the
> >> name
> >>> with smoke and hence, it cant find the file and none of the 
> >>> tests
> in
> >> the
> >>> file are run
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ~Rajani
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Abhinandan Prateek < 
> >>> abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> >>>
>  It is possible, I will check.
> 
> > On 30-Apr-2015, at 3:43 pm, Rajani Karuturi 
> > 
> >> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Abhi,
> >
> > In the recent travis runs, its not printing the test case in
> >> output (
> > https://travis-ci.org/apache/cloudstack/jobs/60634577#L5443)
> >
> > It used to print the test case name and status (
> > https://travis-ci.org/apache/cloudstack/jobs/59958134#L4205)
> >
> > Do you think it can be due to any recent changes?
> >
> > ~Rajani
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek < 
> > abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> There are more than 10 additional suites that can still be
> >> included
> 

RE: FYI: master branch is on 4.9.0 now

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Remi, Ilya, I had the same question... do we have a release cadence ?  

Best,
Raja

-Original Message-
From: ilya [mailto:ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:40 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: FYI: master branch is on 4.9.0 now

Remi,

Thanks for heads up.

Just to clear the confusion (i guess i have), are we on monthly releases 
schedule now?

Regards
ilya

On 1/26/16 12:43 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Following the release of ACS 4.8.0, master is now on version 4.9.0. I tested 
> several upgrades and that works fine.
> 
> If you have a bug fix, please point your pull request to the 4.7 branch and 
> it will be merged to 4.8 and master as well after initial merge.
> 
> New features will land in master, so please open a PR against that branch.
> 
> Regards,
> Remi
> 

RE: [DISCUSSION] Collab for Spring 2016

[Raja Pullela]

+1 for the two day collab - a day of hackathon and a day of meetings/events.

-Original Message-
From: ilya [mailto:ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 2:34 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Collab for Spring 2016

+1 on North America Collab, Montreal is awesome :)

I dont think i will get a trip sponsored to Brazil (too much liability).



On 1/26/16 11:50 AM, Ian Rae wrote:
> Happy to host in Montreal. We should have enough space at our offices, 
> and I have some other locations we could use if we are more than 100.
> 
> Ian
> 
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Will Stevens  wrote:
> 
>> I like this idea as well because it gets more of the participants 
>> focusing on the actual code.  I think it will make the hackathon more 
>> useful for the project this way.
>>
>> *Will STEVENS*
>> Lead Developer
>>
>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw 
>> @CloudOps_
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Mike Tutkowski < 
>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So you're thinking a Hackathon day and a day of presentations?
>>>
>>> That seems reasonable.
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 18, 2016, Pierre-Luc Dion  wrote:
>>>
 2 days or more so we could have an hackathon or a day where we 
 could
>>> spend
 collaborative time working on cloudstack ?
 I liked the hackathon of previous events but they were usually 
 during
>>> time
 of interesting talks so I  think it would be nice to split them but
>>> within
 the same event.

 PL


 On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Mike Tutkowski < 
 mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > wrote:

> I'd be interested in a couple events this year pretty much 
> wherever
>>> they
> are. I have a couple ideas for new presentations that I think will 
> be
>>> of
> interest to people.
>
> It's typically easier for me to get permission for longer-distance
>>> trips
 if
> the event is longer (I expect that is common). We might want to
>>> consider
> two-day events for these get-togethers this year.
>
> Talk to you later,
> Mike
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Pierre-Luc Dion 
> >>> >
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can't recall the thread about having a Collab this spring. Not
>> sure
>> either if a place has been selected yet, Does anyone would be
 interested
> to
>> participate if we organise something in Canada? or because of the
 Bresil
>> edition it would be preferable to have it in europe?
>>
>> I wouldn't go with a full CCC style has we might not have enough
>>> budget
> but
>> we could do hackathon and open discussions?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pierre-Luc
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com 
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> *™*
>

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>>> *™*
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

MS with Java 1.8 running into SSL issue

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

I am running into an issue, reported bug - 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8519
SSVM and CPVM are up but the Agent status blank.
Can you please let me know if anyone has run into this and if there is a work 
around ?

Thanks,
Raja

RE: Important Pending Items

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Sebastien,

On item (3) - the BVTs have been running consistently (with same passrates) and 
haven't had the time to automate the process of reporting to an external site.  
  
Bharat and Sanjeev are working on CI - running BVTs/Regression, working on 
getting it run automatically and consistently.  
Hope to see it ready soon.

Best,
Raja
-Original Message-
From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:29 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Important Pending Items

Morning folks,

We have several crucial pending items, that we need to resolve before moving on:

1- We need an RM for master ( just saw some commits there that should be 
reverted or merged properly in other branches).

2- We need to automate writing release notes, pushing/tagging new docs when 
release come out and announcing releases on website. Currently neither 4.7 nor 
4.8 have been announced.

3- CI is still almost inexistent

-Sebastien

RE: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368

[Raja Pullela]

Daan, I will try to test this out.. 

-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 11:57 PM
To: dev 
Subject: Fwd: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368

People, these were irritating me. I wrote a quick fix [1].

Anyone feels like running a test on it?

[1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1427

-- Forwarded message --
From: 
Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM
Subject: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org, nicolas.m.vazq...@gmail.com, 
priti.sa...@clogeny.com, nitin.mahar...@gmail.com, nicovazque...@gmail.com


See 

--
[...truncated 28679 lines...]
[INFO]
[INFO] --- findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:findbugs (findbugs) @ cloud-quickcloud 
--- [INFO] [INFO] <<< findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:check (cloudstack-findbugs) @ 
cloud-quickcloud <<< [INFO] [INFO] --- findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:check 
(cloudstack-findbugs) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO] [INFO] --- 
cobertura-maven-plugin:2.6:instrument (default-cli) @ cloud-quickcloud --- 
[WARNING] No files to instrument.
[INFO] NOT adding cobertura ser file to attached artifacts list.
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.5:testResources (default-testResources) @ 
cloud-quickcloud --- [debug] execute contextualize [INFO] Using 'UTF-8' 
encoding to copy filtered resources.
[INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory < 
http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/build-master-slowbuild/ws/quickcloud/src/test/resources
>
[INFO] Copying 3 resources
[INFO] Copying 3 resources
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.2:testCompile (default-testCompile) @ 
cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO] No sources to compile [INFO] [INFO] --- 
maven-surefire-plugin:2.18.1:test (default-test) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO] 
[INFO] <<< cobertura-maven-plugin:2.6:cobertura (default-cli) @ 
cloud-quickcloud <<< [INFO] [INFO] --- cobertura-maven-plugin:2.6:cobertura 
(default-cli) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO]

[INFO] Reactor Summary:
[INFO]
[INFO] Apache CloudStack Developer Tools - Checkstyle Configuration SUCCESS 
[1.742s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack . SUCCESS 
[2.087s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Maven Conventions Parent  SUCCESS 
[0.775s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - Managed Context . SUCCESS 
[19.383s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Utils ... SUCCESS 
[1:30.165s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework ... SUCCESS 
[0.105s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - Event Notification .. SUCCESS 
[54.117s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - Configuration ... SUCCESS 
[28.191s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack API . SUCCESS 
[1:50.059s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - REST  SUCCESS 
[17.530s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - IPC . SUCCESS 
[29.621s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Cloud Engine  SUCCESS 
[0.096s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Cloud Engine API  SUCCESS 
[28.469s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - Security  SUCCESS 
[24.653s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Core  SUCCESS 
[1:21.865s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Agents .. SUCCESS 
[36.544s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - Clustering .. SUCCESS 
[37.109s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - Event Notification .. SUCCESS 
[14.344s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Cloud Engine Schema Component ... SUCCESS 
[2:07.394s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - Jobs  SUCCESS 
[40.716s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Cloud Engine Internal Components API  
SUCCESS [26.299s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Server .. 
SUCCESS [4:11.665s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - Quota ... 
SUCCESS [38.103s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Usage Server  
SUCCESS [44.160s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Cloud Engine Orchestration Component 
 SUCCESS [1:21.727s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Cloud Services .. 
SUCCESS [0.068s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Secondary Storage ... 
SUCCESS [0.439s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Secondary Storage Service ... 
SUCCESS [54.719s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Engine Storage Component  
SUCCESS [48.034s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Engine Storage Volume Component . 
SUCCESS [31.044s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Engine Storage Image Component .. 
SUCCESS [25.593s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Engine Storage Data Motion Component 
 SUCCESS [31.054s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Engine Storage Cache Component .. 
SUCCESS [21.145s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Engine Storage Snapshot Component  
SUCCESS [35.388s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Cloud Engine API  
SUCCESS [12.364s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Cloud Engine

RE: [PROPOSAL] Minimum Viable CI Integration

[Raja Pullela]

Bharat, I will work Sanjeev on fixing the failed tests.  We can create a bug to 
track this.  

Best,
Raja
-Original Message-
From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 1:27 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Bharat Kumar 
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimum Viable CI Integration

Hi Bharat,

I’d suggest removing all tests that fail for some reason, not being an error in 
the PR. This will result in a smaller set of tests that “always pass”. Once a 
test doesn’t pass anymore, we know the PR has an issue. Then your CI system 
provides value.

Right now, there are so many failures that soon people don’t even care to look 
at it. Once we have a stable set that works, we can start fixing tests and 
1-by-1 add them to the mix.

Just my $0.02

Regards,
Remi



On 15/03/16 07:06, "Bharat Kumar"  wrote:

>Hi Paul,
>
>I totally agree with you. For now we should ignore the tests which fail all 
>the time while we try to address them.
>
>Now that we have a CI in place we need go and fix issues with the tests.
>
>I have tried to identify a few of them and have  mentioned them in the known 
>issues part of the CI test result.
>
>Some of the test cases are not generic enough to run on different CIs. 
>For example the test_vpc_vpn.py hardcodes the test data in the test itself, 
>which is not a good thing. Generally this kind of data is added the the 
>test_data.py file and is reused .
>This gives us a chance to modify it to suit the needs of the a particular CI.
>
>So for fixing these issues we need test data to identify the issue. Each of 
>the CI run gives these details, the test run info, test results and the 
>management server logs( via the drop box link in the report).
>With this info any one in the community can access this data and start fixing 
>them. This way we can progressively track and improve the health of the 
>release.
>
>So i think we should continue posting these results, so that people can 
>analyse the result and come back with inputs related to incorrect test cases.
>
>—Thanks
>Bharat.
>
>
>On 15-Mar-2016, at 1:24 AM, Paul Angus 
>mailto:paul.an...@shapeblue.com>> wrote:
>
>Cool. Thanks Will.
>
>@Bharat - the work that you're trying to do is great, but until the Marvin 
>tests have been gone through and 'fixed' the information being put into PRs is 
>misleading.
>
>No one knows why these failures are occurring, and it's very likely giving 
>both false positives and false negatives.
>You should probably hold off altogether or isolate the good tests and only run 
>them.
>
>I plan to set up a wiki page (or two) with all of the tests listed, their 
>purpose and other info such as if there are known to work (or not) when they 
>were last checked. You're welcome to make a start on it if you wish.
>
>For example (false negative):
>--
>nosetests --with-marvin --marvin-config=/tmp/te2.cfg --hypervisor=KVM 
>-a tags=advanced,required_hardware=true 
>integration/component/test_acl_isolatednetwork.py
>2016-01-30 07:36:30,488 - DEBUG - Parsing Test data successful
>2016-01-30 07:36:30,488 - DEBUG - Payload: {'account': 'admin', 
>'command': 'listUsers', 'response': 'json'}
>2016-01-30 07:36:30,488 - DEBUG - Sending GET Cmd : 
>listUsers===
>2016-01-30 07:36:30,521 - DEBUG - Response : [{username : u'admin', 
>account : u'admin', domainid : u'4895ddbe-bfac-11e5-be38-06a910012727', 
>firstname : u'admin', created : u'2016-01-20T19:33:19+', lastname : 
>u'cloud', apikey : 
>u'oiD-zcjZw7dsPq8yrjarls3sCtHV0E8FQYRpNXlmEx0ssJ1fKFuCySYL4vLHVmlLA5E3P
>F7_hSnTND_eSRyK_A', domain : u'ROOT', secretkey : 
>u'gLz6lDVFch6ayBAB-8SMZ-RPiOgJTEVJmNgnAMdv36O6eMUKUN6R-Q-3ZtYJUH84jye-5
>q6Qpxf5WOtSuG8WtA', iscallerchilddomain : False, state : u'enabled', 
>accounttype : 1, id : u'a8b21230-bfac-11e5-be38-06a910012727', 
>isdefault : True, accountid : u'a8b2063c-bfac-11e5-be38-06a910012727'}]
>2016-01-30 07:36:30,521 - DEBUG -  Test Client Creation Successful 
>
>---
>
>Nothing actually happens ?!
>Same with test_acl_listvm.py
>
>Example(false positive-failure is in marvin test code):
>-
>nosetests --with-marvin --marvin-config=/tmp/te2.cfg --hypervisor=KVM 
>-a tags=advanced,required_hardware=true 
>/tmp/integration/component/test_browse_templates.py
>2016-01-30 19:52:26,160 - CRITICAL - EXCEPTION: None: ['Traceback (most 
>recent call last):\n', ' File 
>"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/suite.py", line 209, in run\n 
>self.setUp()\n', ' File 
>"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/suite.py", line 292, in setUp\n 
>self.setupContext(ancestor)\n', ' File 
>"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/suite.py", line 315, in 
>setupContext\n try_run(context, names)\n', ' File 
>"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/util.py", line 471, in try_run\n 
>return func()\n', ' File 
>"/tmp/integration/component/test_browse_templates.py", line 84, in 
>

RE: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368

[Raja Pullela]

Daan, Will,

I have tested Daan's original PR-1427, and it looks good.  I am running into a 
build issue with the 1438 - nothing related to the checkin.  Hope to resolve it 
later this weekend or on Monday.

Best,
Raja


-Original Message-
From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Will Stevens
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:19 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368

@Raja.  Actually, maybe test this one since it includes the same change as 
Daan's, but also includes a couple more changes.

I think only one of these should be merged.

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1438

*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer

*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Will Stevens  wrote:

> @Raja, did you have a chance to test this?
>
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1427
>
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
>
> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw 
> @CloudOps_
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> 
> wrote:
>
>> thanks Raja
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Raja Pullela 
>> > >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Daan, I will try to test this out..
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 11:57 PM
>> > To: dev 
>> > Subject: Fwd: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368
>> >
>> > People, these were irritating me. I wrote a quick fix [1].
>> >
>> > Anyone feels like running a test on it?
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1427
>> >
>> > -- Forwarded message --
>> > From: 
>> > Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM
>> > Subject: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368
>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org, nicolas.m.vazq...@gmail.com, 
>> > priti.sa...@clogeny.com, nitin.mahar...@gmail.com,
>> nicovazque...@gmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> > See 
>> > <http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/build-master-slowbuild/3368/>
>> >
>> > --
>> > [...truncated 28679 lines...]
>> > [INFO]
>> > [INFO] --- findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:findbugs (findbugs) @ 
>> > cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO] [INFO] <<< 
>> > findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:check
>> > (cloudstack-findbugs) @ cloud-quickcloud <<< [INFO] [INFO] --- 
>> > findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:check (cloudstack-findbugs) @
>> cloud-quickcloud
>> > --- [INFO] [INFO] --- cobertura-maven-plugin:2.6:instrument
>> (default-cli) @
>> > cloud-quickcloud --- [WARNING] No files to instrument.
>> > [INFO] NOT adding cobertura ser file to attached artifacts list.
>> > [INFO]
>> > [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.5:testResources
>> > (default-testResources) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [debug] execute 
>> > contextualize [INFO] Using 'UTF-8' encoding to copy filtered resources.
>> > [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory <
>> >
>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/build-master-slowbuild/ws/quickclo
>> ud/src/test/resources
>> > >
>> > [INFO] Copying 3 resources
>> > [INFO] Copying 3 resources
>> > [INFO]
>> > [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.2:testCompile 
>> > (default-testCompile) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO] No sources to 
>> > compile [INFO] [INFO] --- maven-surefire-plugin:2.18.1:test 
>> > (default-test) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO] [INFO] <<< 
>> > cobertura-maven-plugin:2.6:cobertura (default-cli) @ 
>> > cloud-quickcloud <<< [INFO] [INFO] ---
>> cobertura-maven-plugin:2.6:cobertura
>> > (default-cli) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO]
>> > ---
>> > -
>> > [INFO] Reactor Summary:
>> > [INFO]
>> > [INFO] Apache CloudStack Developer Tools - Checkstyle Configuration 
>> > SUCCESS [1.742s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack
>> .
>> > SUCCESS [2.087s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Maven Conventions Parent
>> 
>> > SUCCESS [0.775s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - Managed 
>> > Context
>> .
>> > SUCCESS [19.383s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Utils 
>> > ...

RE: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Will, I will retest with the changes.  

Best,
Raja

-Original Message-
From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Will Stevens
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:19 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368

@Raja.  Actually, maybe test this one since it includes the same change as 
Daan's, but also includes a couple more changes.

I think only one of these should be merged.

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1438

*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer

*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Will Stevens  wrote:

> @Raja, did you have a chance to test this?
>
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1427
>
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
>
> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw 
> @CloudOps_
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> 
> wrote:
>
>> thanks Raja
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Raja Pullela 
>> > >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Daan, I will try to test this out..
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 11:57 PM
>> > To: dev 
>> > Subject: Fwd: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368
>> >
>> > People, these were irritating me. I wrote a quick fix [1].
>> >
>> > Anyone feels like running a test on it?
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1427
>> >
>> > -- Forwarded message --
>> > From: 
>> > Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM
>> > Subject: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368
>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org, nicolas.m.vazq...@gmail.com, 
>> > priti.sa...@clogeny.com, nitin.mahar...@gmail.com,
>> nicovazque...@gmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> > See 
>> > <http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/build-master-slowbuild/3368/>
>> >
>> > --
>> > [...truncated 28679 lines...]
>> > [INFO]
>> > [INFO] --- findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:findbugs (findbugs) @ 
>> > cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO] [INFO] <<< 
>> > findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:check
>> > (cloudstack-findbugs) @ cloud-quickcloud <<< [INFO] [INFO] --- 
>> > findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:check (cloudstack-findbugs) @
>> cloud-quickcloud
>> > --- [INFO] [INFO] --- cobertura-maven-plugin:2.6:instrument
>> (default-cli) @
>> > cloud-quickcloud --- [WARNING] No files to instrument.
>> > [INFO] NOT adding cobertura ser file to attached artifacts list.
>> > [INFO]
>> > [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.5:testResources
>> > (default-testResources) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [debug] execute 
>> > contextualize [INFO] Using 'UTF-8' encoding to copy filtered resources.
>> > [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory <
>> >
>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/build-master-slowbuild/ws/quickclo
>> ud/src/test/resources
>> > >
>> > [INFO] Copying 3 resources
>> > [INFO] Copying 3 resources
>> > [INFO]
>> > [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.2:testCompile 
>> > (default-testCompile) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO] No sources to 
>> > compile [INFO] [INFO] --- maven-surefire-plugin:2.18.1:test 
>> > (default-test) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO] [INFO] <<< 
>> > cobertura-maven-plugin:2.6:cobertura (default-cli) @ 
>> > cloud-quickcloud <<< [INFO] [INFO] ---
>> cobertura-maven-plugin:2.6:cobertura
>> > (default-cli) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO]
>> > ---
>> > -
>> > [INFO] Reactor Summary:
>> > [INFO]
>> > [INFO] Apache CloudStack Developer Tools - Checkstyle Configuration 
>> > SUCCESS [1.742s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack
>> .
>> > SUCCESS [2.087s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Maven Conventions Parent
>> 
>> > SUCCESS [0.775s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Framework - Managed 
>> > Context
>> .
>> > SUCCESS [19.383s] [INFO] Apache CloudStack Utils 
>> > ... SUCCESS [1:30.165s] [INFO] Apache 
>> > CloudStack Framework ... SUCCESS [0.105s] 
>> > [INFO] Apache

RE: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368

[Raja Pullela]

I have tested this PR-1438 as well.  LGTM. 

-Original Message-
From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Will Stevens
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 1:08 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368

Thanks Raja, I appreciate your support on this.  Since 1438 includes the 
changes in 1427, I will wait for your suggestions on that one before I do 
anything.

*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer

*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Raja Pullela 
wrote:

> Daan, Will,
>
> I have tested Daan's original PR-1427, and it looks good.  I am 
> running into a build issue with the 1438 - nothing related to the 
> checkin.  Hope to resolve it later this weekend or on Monday.
>
> Best,
> Raja
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On 
> Behalf Of Will Stevens
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:19 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368
>
> @Raja.  Actually, maybe test this one since it includes the same 
> change as Daan's, but also includes a couple more changes.
>
> I think only one of these should be merged.
>
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1438
>
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
>
> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw 
> @CloudOps_
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Will Stevens 
> wrote:
>
> > @Raja, did you have a chance to test this?
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1427
> >
> > *Will STEVENS*
> > Lead Developer
> >
> > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* 
> > tw @CloudOps_
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> > 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> thanks Raja
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Raja Pullela 
> >>  >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Daan, I will try to test this out..
> >> >
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 11:57 PM
> >> > To: dev 
> >> > Subject: Fwd: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild 
> >> > #3368
> >> >
> >> > People, these were irritating me. I wrote a quick fix [1].
> >> >
> >> > Anyone feels like running a test on it?
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1427
> >> >
> >> > -- Forwarded message --
> >> > From: 
> >> > Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM
> >> > Subject: Build failed in Jenkins: build-master-slowbuild #3368
> >> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org, nicolas.m.vazq...@gmail.com, 
> >> > priti.sa...@clogeny.com, nitin.mahar...@gmail.com,
> >> nicovazque...@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > See
> >> > <http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/build-master-slowbuild/3368/>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > [...truncated 28679 lines...]
> >> > [INFO]
> >> > [INFO] --- findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:findbugs (findbugs) @ 
> >> > cloud-quickcloud --- [INFO] [INFO] <<< 
> >> > findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:check
> >> > (cloudstack-findbugs) @ cloud-quickcloud <<< [INFO] [INFO] --- 
> >> > findbugs-maven-plugin:3.0.1:check (cloudstack-findbugs) @
> >> cloud-quickcloud
> >> > --- [INFO] [INFO] --- cobertura-maven-plugin:2.6:instrument
> >> (default-cli) @
> >> > cloud-quickcloud --- [WARNING] No files to instrument.
> >> > [INFO] NOT adding cobertura ser file to attached artifacts list.
> >> > [INFO]
> >> > [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.5:testResources
> >> > (default-testResources) @ cloud-quickcloud --- [debug] execute 
> >> > contextualize [INFO] Using 'UTF-8' encoding to copy filtered
> resources.
> >> > [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory <
> >> >
> >> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/build-master-slowbuild/ws/quickc
> >> lo
> >> ud/src/test/resources
> >> > >
> >> > [INFO] Copying 3 res

Migrating CloudStack content from download.cloud.com

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

Citrix has been hosting   "download.cloud.com"  for  quite  some time  now  and 
 it holds  the  System Templates for all the releases and  some  tools.   Going 
forward,  this  content  needs  to  be  moved  from "download.cloud.com".
So, we will be moving  this content  to  "cloudstack.accelerite.com".I  
will also be  updating  the  links in the  documentation  to reflect  these  
changes and will provide an update  once  the  content  move  is complete.

@Wido, if you could also copy this content to "cloudstack.apt-get.eu"  that  
will be great.  I can provide you the details in a separate email.

Best,
Raja
Senior Manager, Product Development,
Accelerite,
www.accelerite.com




DISCLAIMER
==
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the 
property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, 
distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in 
error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. 
Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for 
virus infected mails.

RE: Migrating CloudStack content from download.cloud.com

[Raja Pullela]

@Sebastien,  thanks for the feedback.  please note that the goal of this 
exercise was not to impact any users during this migration and hence the 
efforts to place the content at a location where we could move it to.  Since 
Wido is ok with hosting the content on 'cloudstack.apt-get.eu', it is even 
better.  I will work with Wido on the next steps.

@Ilya,  'cloud.com' is not getting transferred.

Best,
Raja
Senior Manager, Product Development
Accelerite,
www.accelerite.com

-Original Message-
From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 1:57 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Migrating CloudStack content from download.cloud.com

>>>
>>> Citrix has been hosting   "download.cloud.com"  for  quite  some time  now
>>> and  it holds  the  System Templates for all the releases and  some  tools.
>>>  Going forward,  this  content  needs  to  be  moved  from
>>> "download.cloud.com".So, we will be moving  this content  to
>>> "cloudstack.accelerite.com".I  will also be  updating  the  links in the
>>> documentation  to reflect

Raja, I am going to give this a strong -1

We talked about these sorts of things before and it is not appropriate.



>>>  these  changes and will provide an update  once the  content  move
>>> is complete.
>>>
>>> @Wido, if you could also copy this content to
>>> "cloudstack.apt-get.eu"  that will be great.  I can provide you the details 
>>> in a separate email.
>>
>> Super! If you have a rsync source I will set it up.
>>

@Wido, I think we need to host the sysVM on apt-get.eu and let that be the 
primary source and links in the docs.


>> Wido
>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Raja
>>> Senior Manager, Product Development, Accelerite,
>>> www.accelerite.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> DISCLAIMER
>>> ==
>>> This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information
>>> which is the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business.
>>> It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which
>>> it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not
>>> authorized to read, retain, copy, print, distribute or use this
>>> message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify 
>>> the sender and delete all copies of this message.
>>> Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any
>>> liability for virus infected mails.




DISCLAIMER
==
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the 
property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, 
distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in 
error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. 
Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for 
virus infected mails.

RE: Migrating CloudStack content from download.cloud.com

[Raja Pullela]

Just to summarize... and to close this thread for now,  

1) short term - we will move the content to cloudstack.apt-get.eu
2) long term - can someone from PMC or Cloudstack Apache Infra help find out 
the details on how to all the cloustack (downloads - software, sys templates 
etc) content hosted on 'download.cloudstack.org'  or something similar.

Best,
Raja
Senior Manager, Product Development
Accelerite,  
2055, Laurelwood Road,  Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
Phone: 1-408-216-7010,  www.accelerite.com, @accelerite 

-Original Message-
From: Paul Angus [mailto:paul.an...@shapeblue.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 1:38 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: Migrating CloudStack content from download.cloud.com

If someone can figure out a community/ASF acceptable way of the ACS community 
owning a suitable vendor-neutral domain name, within the community we have 
enough resources to physically host it (including the space donated by BT via 
ShapeBlue).



Regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue

-Original Message-
From: Erik Weber [mailto:terbol...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 4:19 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Migrating CloudStack content from download.cloud.com

One of the issues as far as I know is that as Apache CloudStack we have to be 
strict with what we distribute. Meaning, we won't be able to push noredist 
stuff, which is a pity.

Erik

Den lørdag 26. mars 2016 skrev Ian Rae  følgende:

> Does Apache provide such hosting services? It seems that the Apache 
> infrastructure is very restrictive, perhaps we should ask whether they 
> can provide reliable hosting for templates and other downloads.
>
> If Apache is ruled out as an option I recommend we have the community 
> contribute the hosting (happy to volunteer) but the URL should be a 
> community URL and not specific to a commercial vendor. It should 
> probably be mirrored geographically as well.
>
> Ian
>
> On Saturday, 26 March 2016, Ian Duffy >
> wrote:
>
> > I could be completely wrong here, but wasn't there some specific 
> > closed source citrix magic added to the templates at 
> > downloads.cloud.com that
> was
> > Cloud Platform specific?
> >
> > Ideally, this stuff should be hosted on an Apache Cloudstack 
> > infrastructure or atleast the main community source ( 
> > cloudstack.apt-get.eu, shapeblue repo, etc.).
> >
> > On 25 March 2016 at 15:00, Sebastien Goasguen  
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > On Mar 25, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Raja Pullela <
> > raja.pull...@accelerite.com  >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > @Sebastien,  thanks for the feedback.  please note that the goal 
> > > > of
> > this
> > > exercise was not to impact any users during this migration and 
> > > hence
> the
> > > efforts to place the content at a location where we could move it to.
> > > Since Wido is ok with hosting the content on 
> > > 'cloudstack.apt-get.eu',
> it
> > > is even better.  I will work with Wido on the next steps.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok cool.
> > >
> > > We had other threads about avoiding company specific URL in docs. 
> > > So
> > let’s
> > > definitely avoid that.
> > >
> > >
> > > > @Ilya,  'cloud.com' is not getting transferred.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Raja
> > > > Senior Manager, Product Development Accelerite, 
> > > > www.accelerite.com
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com 
> ]
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 1:57 PM
> > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org  
> > > > Subject: Re: Migrating CloudStack content from 
> > > > download.cloud.com
> > > >
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Citrix has been hosting   "download.cloud.com"  for  quite  some
> > > time  now
> > > >>>> and  it holds  the  System Templates for all the releases and
> some
> > > tools.
> > > >>>> Going forward,  this  content  needs  to  be  moved  from
> > > >>>> "download.cloud.com".So, we will be moving  this content  to
> > > >>>> "cloudstack.accelerite.com".I  will also be  updating  the
> > > links in the
> > > >>>> documentation  to reflect
> > > >
> > > > Raja, I am goin

RE: Migrating CloudStack content from download.cloud.com

[Raja Pullela]

Abhi,  they all moved to support.accelerite.com and are accessible there.

Best,
Raja
Senior Manager, Product Development
Accelerite,
2055, Laurelwood Road,  Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
Phone: 1-408-216-7010,  www.accelerite.com, @accelerite

-Original Message-
From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:18 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Migrating CloudStack content from download.cloud.com

Raja,

  There are many trouble shooting articles on support.citrix.com, they have all 
been removed.
Will you know where they are going to be moved.




On 30/03/16, 11:06 AM, "Raja Pullela"  wrote:

>Just to summarize... and to close this thread for now,
>
>1) short term - we will move the content to cloudstack.apt-get.eu
>2) long term - can someone from PMC or Cloudstack Apache Infra help find out 
>the details on how to all the cloustack (downloads - software, sys templates 
>etc) content hosted on 'download.cloudstack.org'  or something similar.
>
>Best,
>Raja
>Senior Manager, Product Development
>Accelerite,
>2055, Laurelwood Road,  Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
>Phone: 1-408-216-7010,  www.accelerite.com, @accelerite
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Paul Angus [mailto:paul.an...@shapeblue.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 1:38 PM
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: RE: Migrating CloudStack content from download.cloud.com
>
>If someone can figure out a community/ASF acceptable way of the ACS community 
>owning a suitable vendor-neutral domain name, within the community we have 
>enough resources to physically host it (including the space donated by BT via 
>ShapeBlue).
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Paul Angus
>
>paul.an...@shapeblue.com
>www.shapeblue.com
>53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Erik Weber [mailto:terbol...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 4:19 PM
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Migrating CloudStack content from download.cloud.com
>
>One of the issues as far as I know is that as Apache CloudStack we have to be 
>strict with what we distribute. Meaning, we won't be able to push noredist 
>stuff, which is a pity.
>
>Erik
>
>Den lørdag 26. mars 2016 skrev Ian Rae  følgende:
>
>> Does Apache provide such hosting services? It seems that the Apache 
>> infrastructure is very restrictive, perhaps we should ask whether 
>> they can provide reliable hosting for templates and other downloads.
>>
>> If Apache is ruled out as an option I recommend we have the community 
>> contribute the hosting (happy to volunteer) but the URL should be a 
>> community URL and not specific to a commercial vendor. It should 
>> probably be mirrored geographically as well.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> On Saturday, 26 March 2016, Ian Duffy > >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I could be completely wrong here, but wasn't there some specific 
>> > closed source citrix magic added to the templates at 
>> > downloads.cloud.com that
>> was
>> > Cloud Platform specific?
>> >
>> > Ideally, this stuff should be hosted on an Apache Cloudstack 
>> > infrastructure or atleast the main community source ( 
>> > cloudstack.apt-get.eu, shapeblue repo, etc.).
>> >
>> > On 25 March 2016 at 15:00, Sebastien Goasguen > 
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > On Mar 25, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Raja Pullela <
>> > raja.pull...@accelerite.com  >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > @Sebastien,  thanks for the feedback.  please note that the 
>> > > > goal of
>> > this
>> > > exercise was not to impact any users during this migration and 
>> > > hence
>> the
>> > > efforts to place the content at a location where we could move it to.
>> > > Since Wido is ok with hosting the content on 
>> > > 'cloudstack.apt-get.eu',
>> it
>> > > is even better.  I will work with Wido on the next steps.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Ok cool.
>> > >
>> > > We had other threads about avoiding company specific URL in docs. 
>> > > So
>> > let’s
>> > > definitely avoid that.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > @Ilya,  'cloud.com' is not getting transferred.
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > > Raja
>> > > > Senior Manager, Product Development Accelerite, 
>> > > > www.a

RE: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs

[Raja Pullela]

Thanks for the summary Somesh and thanks for Mike for the clarification.  
(3) sounds good - it's always good to let everyone know that you've/reporter 
created a blocker bug!   Hope we will have enough people to chime in to voice 
their yea's or nay's?

-Original Message-
From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 6:02 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs

"3. In case the reporter feels the defect qualifies as a Blocker, they should 
raise it as Blocker and create a discussion/voting thread on the ML for the 
same."

This is what I always do these days and I think it makes a lot of sense: Go 
ahead and mark the bug as a Blocker, but then send out an obvious e-mail (i.e. 
well-named Subject) to the list to begin discussion around it.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Somesh Naidu 
wrote:

> > I did not see (or understand) a major change proposed or needed in 
> > this
> thread.
>
> The primary topic of discussion is categorization of a defect as 
> Blocker, that is, how to qualify a defect as Blocker. The discussion 
> scope widened and included process to raise an issue as "Blocker".
>
> The issue/discussion seems to have risen due to some folks (Raja and 
> team) raising a blocker without discussion on ML. As a counter 
> measure, these defects were downgraded to "Critical" (by Daan).
>
> In terms of qualification for a blocker, the two school of thoughts 
> were, Raja/Ram - consideration should be drawn from the 
> technical/functional impact irrespective of how many users are affected.
> Daan - consideration should be drawn from how many users are affected 
> (achieved by voting).
>
> In terms of the process, two approaches proposed were, Raja/Ram - the 
> reporter should first set the priority level to "Blocker"
> and in parallel raise it for discussion on the ML.
> Daan - the reporter should raise such defect as "Critical" and then 
> work on promoting it to "Blocker" via lazy consensus.
>
> I am not entirely sure which approach suggests a change.
>
> @Daan/Raja - My sincere apologies in case my summary has inaccuracies; 
> please feel free to correct.
>
> My proposal was (matches with mostly what Sebastian said), 1. Create a 
> wiki page with more detailed guidelines and processes for Release 
> Blockers.
> 2. The reporter should raise a defect by qualifying against the above 
> guidelines.
> 3. In case the reporter feels the defect qualifies as a Blocker, they 
> should raise it as Blocker and create a discussion/voting thread on 
> the ML for the same.
> 4. RM should ensure an explicit decision is made on the severity and 
> upgrade/downgrade accordingly. Note, RM having the responsibility and 
> authority to drive closure does not equate to veto power.
>
> Regards,
> Somesh
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 4:23 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Revisit Process for creating Blocker bugs
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 2015, at 7:35 AM, Raja Pullela 
> wrote:
> >
> > Looks like there are few of us who differ with the current
> process/restriction.
> > Just to close this thread - there are already guidelines that exist
> currently and we should continue to adopt or follow those.Let the
> Release Manager or other people closely involved with a particular 
> release decide on whether a particular bug is correctly categorized or 
> not.  They should have the veto power to downgrade or upgrade, as necessary.
> >
>
> I would not call it veto power.
>
> Folks will file tickets and put a priority level, a RM will see 
> blockers and when those are not resolved, the RM should go on the list 
> and get a feel from the community about those blockers (whether they are or 
> not).
>
> I did not see (or understand) a major change proposed or needed in 
> this thread.
>
>
> > Assess Priority -
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30746
> 287
> > When creating a new Jira ticket, please take a minute to correctly
> assess the priority of the issue. By default, Jira assigns a new issue 
> a Priority level of Major. In many cases, this is wrong. Please be 
> sure to set the Priority correctly:
> > Blocker: Blocks development and/or testing work, production cannot run.
> Security issues.
> > Critical: Crashes, loss of data, severe memory leak.
> > Major: Major loss of function, broken feature, returns incorrect
> information, etc.
> > Minor: Minor loss of function, problem with an easy workaround. 
> &g

RE: [Blocker/Critical] VR related Issues

[Raja Pullela]

Here is an update on the Automation being run on master - currently, passrates 
look pretty bad.  
I am still in the process of creating/correlating existing defects to the 
failures.  
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Automation+Results+-+Release+4.6.0
 
BTW, majority of the failures seem to be VR related.

Please let me know if you have any questions,
Raja

-Original Message-
From: Wilder Rodrigues [mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 6:43 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Remi Bergsma ; Miguel Ferreira 
; Rajani Karuturi ; Rohit 
Yadav ; Wido den Hollander ; Daan 
Hoogland 
Subject: Re: [Blocker/Critical] VR related Issues

Hi guys,

CLOUDSTACK-8823 is a duplicate of 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8814, created 2 days ago.

Cheers,
Wilder


On 08 Sep 2015, at 13:35, Wilder Rodrigues 
mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:

Hi guys,

Thanks for reporting those issues.

Concerning the following issues…

* Remote Access VPN
 https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/772
* Default INPUT/Forward policies
 https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/765
* Default route not configured on VPC
 https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/784
* site2site VPN
 https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/772

… we already got PRs to be reviewed/tested, but we are lacking response from 
the community on those. All the PRs above already got 1 LGTM. Could you reserve 
some time to review/test what is categorised as blocker so we can move forward?

I will look into the https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8823 
issue and come back to you.

Cheers,
Wilder


On 08 Sep 2015, at 11:41, Koushik Das 
mailto:koushik@citrix.com>>
 wrote:

I am also seeing this issue 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8823. This is a blocker for 
regular isolated network as VR is not coming to 'up' state due to ssh failure.



-Original Message-
From: Bharat Kumar [mailto:bharat.ku...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, 3 September 2015 15:44
To: 
dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Blocker/Critical] VR related Issues

Hi,

found few more issues related to rvr in isolated networks.
There seems to be a problem with the keepalived config and setting up of 
default routes when rvr changes states.

created bugs for these issues.
CLOUDSTACK-8798
CLOUDSTACK-8799

Thanks,
Bharat.

On 12-Aug-2015, at 10:52 am, Bharat Kumar 
mailto:bharat.ku...@citrix.com>>
 wrote:

Hi,

looks like  there is  one more issue. Conntrackd fails to start in case of rvr 
enabled isolated networks.
created a bug to track this. 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8725

Thanks,
Bharat.

On 11-Aug-2015, at 3:03 pm, Kishan Kavala 
mailto:kishan.kav...@citrix.com>>
 wrote:

Below VR related issues currently open. Most of these issues did not exist in 
4.5.x and are related to VR refactor (persistent VR).

Blocker
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8690 - Remote Access VPN not 
working

Critical
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8688 - Default policy for 
INPUT and FORWARD chain is ACCEPT in VR filter table (Wilder is working on this)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8681 - CS does not honor the 
default deny egress policy in isolated network
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8710 - site2site vpn iptables 
rules are not configured on VR
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8685 - Default route is not 
configured on VPC VR
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8694  - Monitor service cron 
job not visible

[BLOCKER] - Guest VMs are not getting IPs as the DHCP port is not opened in VR

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

JIRA - ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8843
Can someone please pick up this ticket ?  This is failing a bunch of the BVTs 
tests in Basiczone.

Thanks,
Raja

RE: VPC router issue

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Wilder,   BTW, I just checked my setup and it was passing on Sep 9th and was 
regressed after that.

Thanks for checking this out,
Raja
-Original Message-
From: Wilder Rodrigues [mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 7:12 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Remi Bergsma ; Rohit Yadav 
; Rajani Karuturi ; Daan Hoogland 

Subject: Re: VPC router issue

6 days ago test_pc_routers.py succeeded with  PR 788:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/788

It’s in the test results I put there.

I’m now testing Master to verify if it’s still occurring there. I tested the PR 
#808 (https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/805), which had a bunch of 
tests executed against, but not the test_vpc_routers, and there it fails.

So, the problem occurred between 788 and 805.

Will keep digging.

Cheers,
Wilder


On 15 Sep 2015, at 14:18, Wilder Rodrigues 
mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

This morning I shared a message on our Slack channel about the current issue 
I’m facing with VPC routers. The problem was caught by the test_vpc_routers.py 
tests, which are unable to verify the following:

* Create a VPC with 2 Tiers, 3 VMs, 2Pub IPs, and 1 ACL
* Stop the VPC router
* Start the VPC router

I have been busy trying to figure out when it stopped working when I then 
stopped at commit 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/commit/f5e5f4d0026f8ffd6f3aa7e8e4c7be0cd809d6c9
 - although it’s not really the one causing the issue given what I have changed 
there.

The only way to get it working is by restarting the VPC with the cleanup option 
- os destroying the VPC router and just restarting the VPC.

Since not many people have been testing the routers as much as I do, it seems 
no one is aware of this issue.

Long story short: current master is broken.

/me digging through PRs to find the root cause.

Cheers,
Wilder

RE: [BLOCKER] - Guest VMs are not getting IPs as the DHCP port is not opened in VR

[Raja Pullela]

I agree with jayapal, so far none of the BVTs for the hypervisors are at 100% 
except for the simulator's.   
Also, changes/refactoring some of the very core functionality such as VR should 
be thought through and thoroughly tested before being pushed as the impact will 
be huge and stabilization will take time.  At this point we are not sure what 
else is broken ??? 

Also, we should review/critic such changes to make sure we don't spend time on 
it later on...
Please note that Travis tests passing at 100% cannot be taken as the basis to 
think that the changes are good.  

my 2cents!
Raja
-Original Message-
From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi [mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:46 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [BLOCKER] - Guest VMs are not getting IPs as the DHCP port is not 
opened in VR

Hi Wilder,

CLOUDSTACK-8843<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8843> This 
ticket is actually NOT regression. It is not implemented/tested for the basic 
zone VR.
What I have observed in the VR refactor is that sanity testing of components 
the code affects is not done.
Now we are spending time on fixing issues which were stable earlier.

Thanks,
Jayapal


On 15-Sep-2015, at 6:55 pm, Wilder Rodrigues 
mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:

Hi Jayapal,

I would not suggest to move back to the sceptres, but focus on fixing and for 
every fix test it very well so we get confidence. If we start calling scripts 
com the python code it will have a huge chance to become a real mess!

Let’s stick to it and fix it and once it’s stable we can discuss a refactor of 
the thing from scratch - we already have some ideas.

The most important point is: for everyone touching Java/Python code, please 
test your changes before creating PRs or LGTM other’s committers PRs.

Cheers,
Wilder


On 15 Sep 2015, at 14:52, Jayapal Reddy Uradi 
mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com>> wrote:

Wilder, That is true.

All these issues are because of the VR refactoring. I don’t know what are the 
unit test cases run on VR refactor code.
VR (shell) scripts  are stabilized over years and now suddenly moved to new 
implementation. What we have figured out is that this new implementation is 
done only partially. What I am suggesting now to move ahead is to call the 
existing/old shell  scripts in new implementation for configuring the VR to 
avoid spending time on unnecessary bugs.
With current implementation we may see many issues in production for some time 
to come.

Thanks,
Jayapal

On 15-Sep-2015, at 5:57 pm, Wilder Rodrigues 
mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:

I have the feeling that we are fixing 1 issue and created 2.

Please, make sure the routers tests are executed and green before creating the 
PR. I will do the same.

Cheers,
Wilder


On 15 Sep 2015, at 14:23, Jayapal Reddy Uradi 
mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com>> wrote:

Assigned to myself.

Thanks,
Jayapal
On 15-Sep-2015, at 2:49 pm, Raja Pullela 
mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com>> wrote:

Hi,

JIRA - ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8843
Can someone please pick up this ticket ?  This is failing a bunch of the BVTs 
tests in Basiczone.

Thanks,
Raja

[Blocker] PF, static nat, LB, egress rules not working in case of isolated networks

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

Created a blocker - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8881
This is failing a bunch of BVTs in Adv for XS/KVM and VMWare.
Can someone please look at this ?

best,
Raja

RE: [Blocker] PF, static nat, LB, egress rules not working in case of isolated networks

[Raja Pullela]

correction - not "BVT"  - "Regression Tests"  in Advanced zone. 

-Original Message-
From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:12 AM
To: CloudStack Dev (dev@cloudstack.apache.org) 
Subject: [Blocker] PF, static nat, LB, egress rules not working in case of 
isolated networks

Hi,

Created a blocker - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8881
This is failing a bunch of BVTs in Adv for XS/KVM and VMWare.
Can someone please look at this ?

best,
Raja

[Blocker] KVM host goes into disconnected state when MS is restarted

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

Filed a blocker - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8883

All the KVM BVTs - Basic/Adv installations are failing due to this defect - the 
reason being automation process involves restarting MS and the Hosts go into a 
disconnected state.  As a result, SSVM/CPVMs doesn't get deployed.

Best,
Raja

Proposal to get to 100% passrate on BVTs

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

We have been having steady rate of blocker issues/breakages.  I am proposing to 
see if we can get to a 100% passrate on BVTs by next Friday, Sep 25th or sooner.

Once we reach 100% passrate, we should closely monitor BVTs and back out 
commits that we think have broken BVTs.
I will report the BVTs passrate on a daily basis.  Also, working with Kishan to 
see a way to make the data available online?

Here is the latest status on the BVTs -
XS Basic - 93% / 
CLOUDSTACK-8843 (in the 
process of testing Jayapal's fix),
XS Adv - 81.8% / 
CLOUDSTACK-8881, 
CLOUDSTACK-8697

KVM Basic - Deployment failure / 
CLOUDSTACK-8883

KVM Adv - Deployment failure / 
CLOUDSTACK-8883, 
CLOUDSTACK-8881, 
CLOUDSTACK-8697

BTW - currently, no one has picked up  
CLOUDSTACK-8883 yet,

best,
Raja

RE: Proposal to get to 100% passrate on BVTs

[Raja Pullela]

cool, thanks Boris and Daan!  
I agree on the back out part...  but we need to be sure that a particular 
commit is the issue.  Let us see! 

-Original Message-
From: Boris Schrijver [mailto:bo...@pcextreme.nl] 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:34 PM
To: dev 
Subject: Re: Proposal to get to 100% passrate on BVTs

Hi,

Good idea!

I'll pickup CLOUDSTACK-8883!

Best regards,

Boris Schrijver

TEL: +31633784542
MAIL: bo...@pcextreme.nl

> 
> On September 18, 2015 at 1:59 PM Daan Hoogland 
> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Raja, great initiative. I don't think we should wait with the back 
> out part
> unitll we are at 100%. We can start backing out any commit that 
> reduces the
> pass rate in any way right now.
> 
> €0,02
> 
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Raja Pullela 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have been having steady rate of blocker issues/breakages. I am
> > proposing to see if we can get to a 100% passrate on BVTs by next
> > Friday,
> > Sep 25th or sooner.
> >
> > Once we reach 100% passrate, we should closely monitor BVTs and back out
> > commits that we think have broken BVTs.
> > I will report the BVTs passrate on a daily basis. Also, working with
> > Kishan to see a way to make the data available online?
> >
> > Here is the latest status on the BVTs -
> > XS Basic - 93% / CLOUDSTACK-8843<
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8843> (in the process
> > of
> > testing Jayapal's fix),
> > XS Adv - 81.8% / CLOUDSTACK-8881<
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8881>, CLOUDSTACK-8697<
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8697>
> >
> > KVM Basic - Deployment failure / CLOUDSTACK-8883<
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8883>
> >
> > KVM Adv - Deployment failure / CLOUDSTACK-8883<
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8883>, CLOUDSTACK-8881<
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8881>, CLOUDSTACK-8697
> >
> > BTW - currently, no one has picked up CLOUDSTACK-8883<
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8883> yet,
> >
> > best,
> > Raja
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Daan
>

Re: Proposal to get to 100% passrate on BVTs

[Raja Pullela]

Sure Remi, let us do on Monday... 

I agree, date needs to be realistic.  As long as we close on the blockers 
quickly - fixing or backing out a commit that caused it, we should be able to 
hit the deadlines.  

> On Sep 18, 2015, at 5:44 PM, Remi Bergsma  wrote:
> 
> Hi Raja,
> 
> Let’s think of a way to get the BVT score on any PR that is opened. Then we 
> know if there’s a problem introduced in a PR before merge, instead of after. 
> We need to automate this, or else we keep having the same issues. 
> 
> We can meet online somewhere next week to discuss our approach?
> 
> I like setting a date, but it needs to be realistic. We’re not going to solve 
> all blockers by just saying it should be resolved next week. Many people need 
> to step in and each fix one blocker or else it will take much longer. And 
> it’s not only fixing blockers, but also testing them once a PR is there. 
> Testing means building a CloudStack setup, verifying the problem is gone, etc.
> 
> Regards,
> Remi
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 18/09/15 13:55, "Raja Pullela"  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> We have been having steady rate of blocker issues/breakages.  I am proposing 
>> to see if we can get to a 100% passrate on BVTs by next Friday, Sep 25th or 
>> sooner.
>> 
>> Once we reach 100% passrate, we should closely monitor BVTs and back out 
>> commits that we think have broken BVTs.
>> I will report the BVTs passrate on a daily basis.  Also, working with Kishan 
>> to see a way to make the data available online?
>> 
>> Here is the latest status on the BVTs -
>> XS Basic - 93% / 
>> CLOUDSTACK-8843<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8843> (in 
>> the process of testing Jayapal's fix),
>> XS Adv - 81.8% / 
>> CLOUDSTACK-8881<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8881>, 
>> CLOUDSTACK-8697<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8697>
>> 
>> KVM Basic - Deployment failure / 
>> CLOUDSTACK-8883<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8883>
>> 
>> KVM Adv - Deployment failure / 
>> CLOUDSTACK-8883<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8883>, 
>> CLOUDSTACK-8881<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8881>, 
>> CLOUDSTACK-8697
>> 
>> BTW - currently, no one has picked up  
>> CLOUDSTACK-8883<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8883> yet,
>> 
>> best,
>> Raja
>> 

BVT report - 9/21

[Raja Pullela]

BVT report - 9/21
XS Basic - 98.5%, 1 tests failed, test_01_test_vm_volume_snapshot
XS Adv - 81.9%, 20 tests failed,
XS EIP - 98.4%, 1 tests failed, test_01_test_vm_volume_snapshot
KVM Basic - Deployment failure/due to bug, CLOUDSTACK-8883
KVM Adv - Deployment failure/due to bug, CLOUDSTACK-8883
KVM EIP - Deployment failure/due to bug, CLOUDSTACK-8883

Blocker Bugs -
Yet to be picked up

-  CloudStack-8789 /BVT Impact

-  CloudStack-8881 /BVT Impact

-  CloudStack-8848

-  CloudStack-8808

Pending Resolution

-  CloudStack-8883 /Boris

-  CloudStack-8843 /Jayapal/Coded and ready for LGTM, latest BVT result 
is based on this commit.

-  CloudStack-8795 /Wilder

-  CloudStack-8878 /Wilder

-  CloudStack-8697 /Wilder

BVTs failing:
integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb

integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat

integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat

integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb

integration.smoke.test_network.TestPortForwarding.test_01_port_fwd_on_src_nat

integration.smoke.test_network.TestPortForwarding.test_02_port_fwd_on_non_src_nat

integration.smoke.test_network.TestRebootRouter.test_reboot_router

integration.smoke.test_network.TestRouterRules.test_network_rules_acquired_public_ip_1_static_nat_rule

integration.smoke.test_network.TestRouterRules.test_network_rules_acquired_public_ip_2_nat_rule

integration.smoke.test_network.TestRouterRules.test_network_rules_acquired_public_ip_3_Load_Balancer_Rule

integration.smoke.test_network_acl.TestNetworkACL.test_network_acl

integration.smoke.test_nic.TestNic.test_01_nic

integration.smoke.test_over_provisioning.TestUpdateOverProvision.test_UpdateStorageOverProvisioningFactor

integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_01_scale_vm

integration.smoke.test_service_offerings.TestServiceOfferings.test_04_change_offering_small

integration.smoke.test_vm_life_cycle.TestVMLifeCycle.test_08_migrate_vm

integration.smoke.test_vm_life_cycle.TestVMLifeCycle.test_10_attachAndDetach_iso

integration.smoke.test_vm_snapshots.TestSnapshots.test_01_test_vm_volume_snapshot

integration.smoke.test_vm_snapshots.TestVmSnapshot.test_01_create_vm_snapshots

integration.smoke.test_vm_snapshots.TestVmSnapshot.test_02_revert_vm_snapshots

integration.smoke.test_vm_snapshots.TestVmSnapshot.test_03_delete_vm_snapshots

integration.smoke.test_volumes.TestCreateVolume.test_01_create_volume

integration.smoke.test_vpc_vpn.TestVpcRemoteAccessVpn.test_vpc_remote_access_vpn

RE: Proposal to get to 100% passrate on BVTs

[Raja Pullela]

Rohit, not sure about the efforts required to do this.  Can certainly work with 
you or someone to do this.  Please let me know,

best,
Raja
From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:53 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposal to get to 100% passrate on BVTs

Great initiative Raja!

Any effort in generalizing the BVT infra so the infra can be reproduced using 
Puppet/Ansible?
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect, ShapeBlue


[cid:9DD97B41-04C5-45F0-92A7-951F3E962F7A]


M. +91 88 262 30892 | 
rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab





Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services

IaaS Cloud Design & Build
CSForge - rapid IaaS deployment framework
CloudStack Consulting
CloudStack Software 
Engineering
CloudStack Infrastructure 
Support
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended 
solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or 
opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the 
intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon 
its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you 
believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company 
incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company 
incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape 
Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is 
operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company 
registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from 
Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.

RE: Proposal to get to 100% passrate on BVTs

[Raja Pullela]

Bharat,  can you please repost if there is any specific ask ?  

Thanks,
Raja 
-Original Message-
From: Bharat Kumar [mailto:bharat.ku...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:03 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposal to get to 100% passrate on BVTs

Hi, 

I am already working towards this. We can already replicate the test infra 
using puppet. But i need some help in generating reports, sharing the test 
results and archiving them.
particularly archiving them since we need some space which is accessible by 
everyone.

I have also made a proposal to do this in the acs, It did not get much 
attention though. 

Thanks,
Bharat.


On 22-Sep-2015, at 9:43 am, Sanjeev N  wrote:

> I would be happy to lend my hand in generalizing the BVT Infra.
> 
> -Sanjeev
> 
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Raja Pullela 
> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Rohit, not sure about the efforts required to do this.  Can certainly 
>> work with you or someone to do this.  Please let me know,
>> 
>> best,
>> Raja
>> From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com]
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:53 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Proposal to get to 100% passrate on BVTs
>> 
>> Great initiative Raja!
>> 
>> Any effort in generalizing the BVT infra so the infra can be 
>> reproduced using Puppet/Ansible?
>> Regards,
>> Rohit Yadav
>> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
>> 
>> 
>> [cid:9DD97B41-04C5-45F0-92A7-951F3E962F7A]
>> 
>> 
>> M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>
>> Blog: bhaisaab.org<http://bhaisaab.org> | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related 
>> services
>> 
>> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<
>> http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build/>
>> CSForge - rapid IaaS deployment 
>> framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
>> CloudStack Software Engineering<
>> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
>> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<
>> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses< 
>> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>> 
>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are 
>> intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is 
>> addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the 
>> author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or 
>> related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
>> email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor 
>> copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe 
>> you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company 
>> incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a 
>> company incorporated in India and is operated under license from 
>> Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company 
>> incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue 
>> Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South 
>> Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a 
>> registered trademark.
>> 

BVT report 9/22

[Raja Pullela]

Unfortunately, I had an issue with the automation code this morning- fixed the 
same and rerunning the BVTs.  I hope to post an update later in the day.  Sorry 
for the delay!

BVT report 9/22

[Raja Pullela]

BVT report

XS Basic – 98.6%, one test failed; a test script issue

XS Adv – 93.4%, one test failed; a test script issue

XS EIP – 98.5%,

VMWare Adv – 82.4%

KVM Basic – Deployment failed/KVM agent issue – scheduled another run in 2 hrs 
with Boris’ checkin to fix the agent issue.  Ran the tests on the PR and 
everything seems to be working.

KVM Adv – Deployment failed

KVM EIP – Deployment failed

[Blocker] Egress rules are not configured in VR

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,



Hopefully this will be the last Blocker on the VR functionality ?

Can someone please pick this bug – ASAP ?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8905



best,

Raja

VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ?

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,



I understand a concern on the VR changes was raised earlier.  My apologies to 
restart this thread again.



However, my last conversation with Jayapal, who has fixed/have been fixing lot 
of VR issues, about the VR issues and he is pretty concerned about the 
refactoring that has happened.  I have had the same concern for sometime now  
(VR issues have been on the list of issues to be looked into for at least 4+ 
weeks) and wanted to see a good solution for this- with VR being very 
fundamental to the system.



Couple of solutions/proposals –

1)  Back out the VR changes – Pros: VR has been stable for some time and it 
is working well.

2)  Continue to fix/stability VR changes -   Concerns: is the unknowns, 
what we will find out and how long this will take to stabilize the VR 
functionality.



Please chime in if you have any thoughts or concerns around this,



best,

Raja

Re: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ?

[Raja Pullela]

@wilder, Not sure why you would think it as a nonsense approach? sure, you 
realize amount of code churn and blockers we are dealing with when 4.6 is ready 
to go out. 

Agreed, the refactoring happened several months ago and we could have taken a 
closer look then-   the recent blockers filed have uncovered areas where in the 
implementation didn't exist.  I will post the bug details around this.  

Obviously, the refactoring changes missed multiple critical test scenarios and 
will take substantial time to test/stabilize. 

The BVTs are coming good for basic zone and Adv zone there are still a number 
of failures and it will take us good time to get those fixed.  

Besides the BVTs, regression tests are in a very bad shape.  Hope to get to 
these starting next week.  

Please see my latest bvt report, I will post in another 2 hrs, waiting for a 
new run to complete.  

> On Sep 24, 2015, at 7:00 PM, sebgoa  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Remi Bergsma  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Are you serious? You consider to revert a PR that was merged over 6 months 
>> ago? And expect it to become more stable?
> 
> I have not followed all the latest development, but if we are talking about 
> the VR refactoring, indeed it happened several months back. Reverting it now 
> does not seem like a good idea.
> 
> I am probably missed a beat here, but the latest BVT results sent by Raja 
> showed XS tests almost at 100%, there were only some issues with KVM.
> 
>> The problem, in MHO, is not that we find bugs that we consider blockers. The 
>> problem is we are unable to resolve them effectively because master is 
>> unstable. There currently isn’t a single PR that solves it, hence there is 
>> no way to test PRs. This is because we have many PRs open and they were all 
>> branched off of a master that doesn’t work. I simply can't test proposed 
>> PRs. 
>> 
>> This problem occurred about 3 weeks ago, because before that master worked 
>> and we could solve issues and merge PRs. I’m not saying it was bug-free, but 
>> at least we could work on stabilising it. Most likely, we accepted a “fix” 
>> that made things worse. Probably even multiple of them.
> 
> Master seemed stable and PR where being merged towards 4.6 with success (it 
> seemed), so indeed if we have issues now of stability, we should identify 
> what caused it
> 
>> To get out of this, I think we need to combine a few PRs that make it 
>> stable. I’ll have a look today with Wilder and Funs to see if what fixes we 
>> need to combine to make it work again. O
>> nce we merge it and master actually works again, we can rebase any open PR 
>> with current master and work from there.
> 
> Potentially, if you identify the commit or commits that brought the 
> instability you could revert to that point and play forward PRs that did not 
> render master unstable.
> 
> Thanks for looking into it.
> 
> -seb
> 
>> Regards,
>> Remi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 24/09/15 14:00, "Ramanath Katru"  wrote:
>>> 
>>> My vote is for the approach no.1 - to backout completely. Most of VR 
>>> functionalities are broken and are in a mess to say the least. It 
>>> definitely will take some time and effort from several folks to get it to a 
>>> stable state.
>>> 
>>> Ram Katru
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] 
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:06 PM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ? 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I understand a concern on the VR changes was raised earlier.  My apologies 
>>> to restart this thread again.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, my last conversation with Jayapal, who has fixed/have been fixing 
>>> lot of VR issues, about the VR issues and he is pretty concerned about the 
>>> refactoring that has happened.  I have had the same concern for sometime 
>>> now  (VR issues have been on the list of issues to be looked into for at 
>>> least 4+ weeks) and wanted to see a good solution for this- with VR being 
>>> very fundamental to the system.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Couple of solutions/proposals –
>>> 
>>> 1)  Back out the VR changes – Pros: VR has been stable for some time 
>>> and it is working well.
>>> 
>>> 2)  Continue to fix/stability VR changes -   Concerns: is the unknowns, 
>>> what we will find out and how long this will take to stabilize the VR 
>>> functionality.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please chime in if you have any thoughts or concerns around this,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> best,
>>> 
>>> Raja
> 

Re: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ?

[Raja Pullela]

this is very disrespectful... Sorry to say that you don't understand the 
complexity and impact of this..  Let's not discuss this over an email and agree 
to disagree with each other... move on! 

> On Sep 24, 2015, at 10:20 PM, Wilder Rodrigues 
>  wrote:
> 
> Raja,
> 
> Do you actually know the amount of blockers we have and how many are VR 
> related? Because I have seen emails from Rajani around concerning the 
> blockers and I don’t see many. So, yes, I really do think your approach is 
> non-sense.
> 
> I mentioned it before, about 1 week ago, but I think you just ignored the 
> content of the email. We have 7 blockers, from which 4 are VR related but 
> probably only 2 are related to the refactor of the router side (python code). 
> You created 2 of the blockers. So, I think would be better to focus on fixing 
> them other than making a storm out of it.
> 
> You can see the list here: 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12326765
> 
> The java part of the router refactor was released on 4.5, quite some time 
> ago. So, please have a look at git log before mentioned the refactor as a 
> whole.
> 
> Another thing is: master is unstable - not because VR changes - and nobody 
> could tests the PRs that should fix the VR issues.  When we suggested to 
> stabilise Master, people kept pushing features through PRs thinking that it 
> would help - even after we said only BLOCKER issues would be merged.
> 
> So, please stop this storm around the VR because we are trying to work.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wilder
> 
> 
> On 24 Sep 2015, at 17:21, Raja Pullela 
> mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com>> wrote:
> 
> @wilder, Not sure why you would think it as a nonsense approach? sure, you 
> realize amount of code churn and blockers we are dealing with when 4.6 is 
> ready to go out.
> 
> Agreed, the refactoring happened several months ago and we could have taken a 
> closer look then-   the recent blockers filed have uncovered areas where in 
> the implementation didn't exist.  I will post the bug details around this.
> 
> Obviously, the refactoring changes missed multiple critical test scenarios 
> and will take substantial time to test/stabilize.
> 
> The BVTs are coming good for basic zone and Adv zone there are still a number 
> of failures and it will take us good time to get those fixed.
> 
> Besides the BVTs, regression tests are in a very bad shape.  Hope to get to 
> these starting next week.
> 
> Please see my latest bvt report, I will post in another 2 hrs, waiting for a 
> new run to complete.
> 
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 7:00 PM, sebgoa 
> mailto:run...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Remi Bergsma 
> mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:
> 
> Are you serious? You consider to revert a PR that was merged over 6 months 
> ago? And expect it to become more stable?
> 
> I have not followed all the latest development, but if we are talking about 
> the VR refactoring, indeed it happened several months back. Reverting it now 
> does not seem like a good idea.
> 
> I am probably missed a beat here, but the latest BVT results sent by Raja 
> showed XS tests almost at 100%, there were only some issues with KVM.
> 
> The problem, in MHO, is not that we find bugs that we consider blockers. The 
> problem is we are unable to resolve them effectively because master is 
> unstable. There currently isn’t a single PR that solves it, hence there is no 
> way to test PRs. This is because we have many PRs open and they were all 
> branched off of a master that doesn’t work. I simply can't test proposed PRs.
> 
> This problem occurred about 3 weeks ago, because before that master worked 
> and we could solve issues and merge PRs. I’m not saying it was bug-free, but 
> at least we could work on stabilising it. Most likely, we accepted a “fix” 
> that made things worse. Probably even multiple of them.
> 
> Master seemed stable and PR where being merged towards 4.6 with success (it 
> seemed), so indeed if we have issues now of stability, we should identify 
> what caused it
> 
> To get out of this, I think we need to combine a few PRs that make it stable. 
> I’ll have a look today with Wilder and Funs to see if what fixes we need to 
> combine to make it work again. O
> nce we merge it and master actually works again, we can rebase any open PR 
> with current master and work from there.
> 
> Potentially, if you identify the commit or commits that brought the 
> instability you could revert to that point and play forward PRs that did not 
> render master unstable.
> 
> Thanks for looking into it.
> 
> -seb
> 
> Regards,
&g

BVT report 9/23

[Raja Pullela]

BVT report 09/23

simulator basic - 30% , earlier runs had 100% pass rate, failures need to be 
analyzed 
Simulator adv - 50%, earlier runs had 100% pass rate, failures need to be 
analyzed 
XS basic - 95.3% 
XS Adv - 93.6% 
XS eip - 86.7%
KVM basic - 89.4%
KVM Adv - Deployment issue, need to check and will update 
KVM eip - 95.7% 
VMware Adv - deployment issue, need to check and update 

Re: BVT report 9/23

[Raja Pullela]

Please see inline comments..

> On Sep 25, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Sebastien Goasguen  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Raja Pullela  wrote:
>> 
>> BVT report 09/23
>> 
>> simulator basic - 30% , earlier runs had 100% pass rate, failures need to be 
>> analyzed
> 
> What’s earlier ? yesterday, last week, six months ago ?
Earlier - yesterday's runs
> 
>> Simulator adv - 50%, earlier runs had 100% pass rate, failures need to be 
>> analyzed
> 
> Same here, what’s earlier ? 
Earlier - yesterday's runs
> 
>> XS basic - 95.3% 
>> XS Adv - 93.6% 
>> XS eip - 86.7%
> 
> Is this good enough from your view for release, or do you want 100% ?
We should get 100%
> 
>> KVM basic - 89.4%
>> KVM Adv - Deployment issue, need to check and will update 
>> KVM eip - 95.7%
> 
> Good so it’s running now.
Yes, after the agent fixes this is back up
> 
>> VMware Adv - deployment issue, need to check and update
> 

RE: BVT report 9/23

[Raja Pullela]

Yes Remi... I will look into the failures and report.

-Original Message-
From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 12:48 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: BVT report 9/23

Hi Raja,

Thanks for the report. Can you please add details, so we can see what tests 
exactly fail? We can then try to reproduce / root cause. 

Regards, Remi 

> On 24 Sep 2015, at 21:09, Raja Pullela  wrote:
> 
> BVT report 09/23
> 
> simulator basic - 30% , earlier runs had 100% pass rate, failures need 
> to be analyzed Simulator adv - 50%, earlier runs had 100% pass rate, 
> failures need to be analyzed XS basic - 95.3% XS Adv - 93.6% XS eip - 
> 86.7% KVM basic - 89.4% KVM Adv - Deployment issue, need to check and 
> will update KVM eip - 95.7% VMware Adv - deployment issue, need to 
> check and update
> 
> 

RE: Blameless post mortem

[Raja Pullela]

Thanks for the update Remi!

-Original Message-
From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com] 
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 1:21 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Blameless post mortem 

Hi all,

This mail is intended to be blameless. We need to learn something from it. 
That's why I left out who exactly did what because it’s not relevant. There are 
multiple examples but it's about the why. Let's learn from this without blaming 
anyone.

We know we need automated testing. We have integration tests, but we are unable 
to run all of them on any Pull Request we receive. If we would have that in 
place, it'd be much easier to spot errors, regression and so on. It'd also be 
more rewarding to write more tests.

Unfortunately we're not there yet. So, we need to do something else instead 
until we get there. If we do nothing, we know we have many issues because a 
master that breaks on a regular basis is the most frustrating things. We said 
we'd use Pull Requests with at least two humans to review and give their OK for 
a Pull Request. In the form of LGTM: Looks Good To Me. Ok, so the LGTMs are 
there because we have no automated testing. Keep that in mind. You are supposed 
to replace automated testing until it's there.

Since we do this, master got a lot more stable. But every now and then we still 
have issues. Let's look at how we do manual reviews. Again, this is not to 
blame anyone. It's to open our eyes and make us realise what we're doing and 
what results we get out of that.


Example Pull Request #784: 
Title: CLOUDSTACK-8799 fixed the default routes

That's nice, it has a Jira id and a short description (as it should be).

The first person comes along and makes a comment:
"There was also an issue with VPC VRs" ... "Have you seen this issue? Does your 
change affects the VPC VR (single/redundant)?"

Actually a good question. Unfortunaly there comes no answer. After a reminder, 
it was promised to do tests against VPC networks. Great!

The Jenkins builds both succeed and also Travis is green. But how much value 
does this have? They have the impression to do automated testing, and although 
you could argue they do, it's far from complete. If it breaks, you know you 
have an issue. But it doesn’t work the other way around.

Back to our example PR. In the mean time, another commit gets pushed to it: 
"CLOUDSTACK-8799 fixed for vpc networks." But if you look at the Jira issue, 
you see it is about redundant virtual routers. The non-VPC ones. So this is 
vague at best. But a reviewer gives a LGTM because the person could create a 
VPC. That doesn't have anything to do with the problem being fixed in this PR 
nor with the comments made earlier. But, at least the person said what he did 
and we should all do that. What nobody knew back then, was that this broke the 
default route on VPCs.

Then something strange happens: the two commits from the PR end up on master as 
direct commits. With just one LGTM and no verification from the person 
commenting about the linked issue. This happened on Friday September 11th. 

That day 21 commits came in, from 7 Pull Request and unfortunately also from 
some direct commits. We noticed the direct commits and notified the list 
(http://cloudstack.markmail.org/message/srmszloyipkxml36). As a lot came in at 
the same time, it was decided not to revert them. Looking back, we should have 
done it.

From this point on, VPCs were broken as they wouldn't get a default route. So, 
no public internet access from VMs in VPC tiers, no VPNs working, etc. This was 
mentioned to the list on Thursday September 15th, after some chats and 
debugging going on over the weekend 
(http://cloudstack.markmail.org/message/73ulpu4p75ex24tc)

Here we are, master is broken functionality wise and new Pull Requests come in 
to fix blockers. But we cannot ever test their proper working, because VPCs are 
broken in master and so also in the PRs branched off of it. With or without 
change in the PR. 

It starts to escalate as the days go by.

I’ll leave out the bit on how this frustrated people. Although it’s good to 
know we do not want to be in this situation.

Eventually Wilder and I spent an evening and a day working on a branch where we 
loaded 7 PRs on top of each other (all VR related) only to find the VPC is 
still broken. It allowed us to zoom in and find the default route was missing 
again. We said it worked 3 weeks before, because the same tests that succeeded 
then, now were broken. We had already fixed this in PR #738 on August 25 so 
were sure about it.

After some digging we could trace it back to Pull Request #784. Imagine the 
feeling seeing your own comment there mentioning the previous issue on the 
default gateways. Fair to say our human review process clearly failed here. 
Many many hours were spent on this problem over the past two weeks. Could we 
have prevented this from happening? I think so, yes.


This example clearly shows why:

- we should u

RE: Blameless post mortem

[Raja Pullela]

My 2 cents... agree with Bharat - this was such a critical piece... changing of 
VR scripts from bash to python.  Most of the 4.6 blockers filed were around 
this.  

the FS - 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Refactoring+Redundant+Virtual+Router+Implementation,
 I see which is last modified on May 19th, 2015 - is about RVR changes.  this 
does not talk anything about VR changes - Is there any CWIKI documentation 
around the VR changes?

-Original Message-
From: Bharat Kumar [mailto:bharat.ku...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:24 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Blameless post mortem

Hi Remi,

Whatever  ever we think  we have discovered are all well known best practices 
while developing code in community. 
I agree that tests need to be run on a new PR,  but i wonder why was this 
ignored when merging the VR refactor code. Perhaps we will uncover some more 
issues if we investigate this. I believe one of the reasons for this is the 
complexity and incomplete nature of the vr refactor change and failing to 
identify the areas which got effected. If we had a good documentation i think 
we cloud have understood the areas that were getting 
impacted early on, areas like the vpn ,  iptables, isolated networks rvr   etc  
and run the relevant tests. The documentation will also help us focus on these 
areas while reviewing  and fixing subsequent issues. Currently no one knows the 
areas that got effected 
due to the vr refactor change, we are seeing issues all over the code.  I think 
this is a bigger problem than what we have discussed so far.

I think presently we should stop fixing all the vr refactoring  bugs until we 
come up with a  proper document describing the VR refactoring  changes.

I am not suggesting that we should revert the vr refactor code, I am willing to 
work on this and fix the issues,  I am only asking if we can get some 
documentation.


Regards,
Bharat.

On 28-Sep-2015, at 4:59 pm, Sebastien Goasguen  wrote:

> 
>> On Sep 28, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Remi Bergsma  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Bharat,
>> 
>> 
>> There is only one way to prove a feature works: with tests. That's why I say 
>> actually _running_ the tests we have today on any new PR, is the most 
>> important thing. Having no documentation is a problem, I agree, but it is 
>> not more important IMHO. If we had the documentation, we still would have 
>> issues if nobody runs the tests and verifies pull requests. Documentation 
>> that is perfect does not automatically lead to perfect implementation. So we 
>> need tests to verify.
>> 
>> If we don't agree that is also fine. We need to do both anyway and I think 
>> we do agree on that.
>> 
> 
> Also we need to move forward. We should have a live chat once 4.6 is out to 
> discuss all issues/problems and iron out the process.
> 
> But reverting the VR refactor is not going to happen. There was ample 
> discussions on the PR when it was submitted, there was time to review and 
> raise concerns at that time. It went through quite a few reviews, tests 
> etc...Maybe the documentation is not good, but the time to raise this concern 
> I am afraid was six months ago. We can learn from it, but we are not going to 
> revert it, this would not go cleanly as David mentioned.
> 
> So let's get back to blockers for 4.6, are there still VR related issues with 
> master ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Regards,
>> Remi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 28/09/15 12:15, "Bharat Kumar"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Remi,
>>> 
>>> i do not agree with "There is no bigger problem"  part of your reply. so I 
>>> had to repeat myself to make it more clear, Not because i am not aware of 
>>> what this thread is supposed to do.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Bharat.
>>> 
>>> On 28-Sep-2015, at 2:51 pm, Remi Bergsma  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi Bharat,
 
 I understand your frustrations but we already agreed on this so no need to 
 repeat. This thread is supposed to list some improvements and learn from 
 it. Your point has been taken so let's move on.
 
 We need documentation first, then do a change after which all tests should 
 pass. Even better is we write (missing) tests before changing stuff so you 
 know they pass before and after the fact. 
 
 When doing reviews, feel free to ask for design documentation if you feel 
 it is needed.
 
 Regards, Remi
 
 
 
 On 28/09/15 11:02, "Bharat Kumar"  wrote:
 
> Hi Remi,
> 
> I never intended to say that we should not run tests, but even 
> before tests we should have proper documentation. My concern was if a 
> major change is being introduced it should be properly documented. All 
> the issues which we are trying to fix are majorly due to VR refactor. If 
> there was a proper documentation for this we could have fixed this in a 
> better way.  Even to add tests we need to understand how a particular 
> thing works and what data dose it expect. I 

Jenkins - slaves reporting "out of space"

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

Following is the status of machines on http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/


* cca-slave-01 - Dead

* cca-slave-02 - Dead

* cca-slave-03 - Dead

* coohq-slave-01 - Dead

* msaz-slave-01 - Dead

* msaz-slave-02 - Dead

* test-infra-common - Dead

can someone take a look at freeing up some space on these machines ?
Also, is there a list (of people) on CWIKI who has permissions to do this ?

best,
Raja

java.io.IOException: No space left on device
at java.io.FileOutputStream.writeBytes(Native Method)
at java.io.FileOutputStream.write(FileOutputStream.java:318)
at sun.nio.cs.StreamEncoder.writeBytes(StreamEncoder.java:221)
at sun.nio.cs.StreamEncoder.implClose(StreamEncoder.java:316)
at sun.nio.cs.StreamEncoder.close(StreamEncoder.java:149)
at java.io.OutputStreamWriter.close(OutputStreamWriter.java:233)
at java.io.BufferedWriter.close(BufferedWriter.java:266)
at hudson.util.AtomicFileWriter.close(AtomicFileWriter.java:94)
at hudson.util.AtomicFileWriter.commit(AtomicFileWriter.java:109)
at hudson.util.TextFile.write(TextFile.java:121)
at hudson.model.Job.saveNextBuildNumber(Job.java:274)
at hudson.model.Job.assignBuildNumber(Job.java:332)
at hudson.model.Run.(Run.java:286)
at hudson.model.AbstractBuild.(AbstractBuild.java:167)
at hudson.model.Build.(Build.java:92)
at hudson.model.FreeStyleBuild.(FreeStyleBuild.java:34)
at sun.reflect.GeneratedConstructorAccessor9915.newInstance(Unknown 
Source)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance

BVT report 9/29

[Raja Pullela]

Hopefully the format of this email stays as I compose ?

Bugs to be fixed for BVTs:
a.   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8915
b.  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8697
c.   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8891 - Should be a 
blocker
d.  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8876 - Should be a 
blocker


BVT Passrate for 9/25:


* Simulator Basic - 97.6%,  Failed tests 1

* Simulator Adv - 100%

* XS Basic - 97.1%, Failed tests 2

* XS Adv - 94.3%, Failed tests 6

* KVM Basic - 94.2%, Failed tests 4

* KVM Adv - 92.6%, Failed tests 8

Test cases failed:

Simulator Basic

* 
integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
  (Failure: test case issue)


XS Basic

* 
integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
  (Failure: test case issue)

* integration.smoke.test_volumes.TestVolumes.test_02_attach_volume 
/Failure: SSH connection failed

XS Adv

* 
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
 (Failure: SSH connection failed)

* 
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
 (Failure: SSH connection failed)

* 
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb 
(Failure: SSH connection failed)

* integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb 
(Failure: 'Failed to assign load balancer rule')

* 
integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
  (Failure: test case issue)

* :setup (Failure: 
test setup issue)
KVM Basic

* integration.smoke.test_volumes.TestVolumes.test_02_attach_volume 
(Failure: SSH connection failed)

* integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm (Failure: 
Timed out waiting for SSVM agent to be Up)

* integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm (Failure: 
Timed out waiting for SSVM agent to be Up)

* 
integration.smoke.test_vm_life_cycle.TestVMLifeCycle.test_10_attachAndDetach_iso
 (Failure: SSH connection failed)


KVM Adv

* 
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
  (Failure: SSH connection failed)

* 
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
 (Failure: SSH connection failed)

* 
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb 
(Failure: SSH connection failed)

* integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb 
(Failure: 'Failed to assign load balancer rule')

* 
integration.smoke.test_snapshots.TestSnapshotRootDisk.test_01_snapshot_root_disk
 (Failure: 'Failed to create snapshot due to an internal error creating 
snapshot)

* :setup (Failure: 
test setup issue)

* integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm (Failure: 
Timed out waiting for SSVM agent to be Up)

* integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm (Failure: 
Timed out waiting for SSVM agent to be Up)

Re: BVT report 9/29

[Raja Pullela]

Yes, looks like 8891 is resolved based on the comments.  I will double check 
the tests in regression too - just to make sure.

> On Sep 29, 2015, at 6:55 PM, Wilder Rodrigues  
> wrote:
> 
> I’m testing 8915 now. The vrrp configuration was broken: instead of CIDR it 
> was configured with IP only - messed up the guest network interfaces.
> 
> Concerning 8891, it was fixed over the weekend, right? We tested iso nets and 
> VMs got IPs assigned successfully.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wilder
> 
> 
> 
>> On 29 Sep 2015, at 14:49, Raja Pullela  wrote:
>> 
>> Hopefully the format of this email stays as I compose ?
>> 
>> Bugs to be fixed for BVTs:
>> a.   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8915
>> b.  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8697
>> c.   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8891 - Should be a 
>> blocker
>> d.  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8876 - Should be a 
>> blocker
>> 
>> 
>> BVT Passrate for 9/25:
>> 
>> 
>> * Simulator Basic - 97.6%,  Failed tests 1
>> 
>> * Simulator Adv - 100%
>> 
>> * XS Basic - 97.1%, Failed tests 2
>> 
>> * XS Adv - 94.3%, Failed tests 6
>> 
>> * KVM Basic - 94.2%, Failed tests 4
>> 
>> * KVM Adv - 92.6%, Failed tests 8
>> 
>> Test cases failed:
>> 
>> Simulator Basic
>> 
>> * 
>> integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
>>   (Failure: test case issue)
>> 
>> 
>> XS Basic
>> 
>> * 
>> integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
>>   (Failure: test case issue)
>> 
>> * integration.smoke.test_volumes.TestVolumes.test_02_attach_volume 
>> /Failure: SSH connection failed
>> 
>> XS Adv
>> 
>> * 
>> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
>>  (Failure: SSH connection failed)
>> 
>> * 
>> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
>>  (Failure: SSH connection failed)
>> 
>> * 
>> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb
>>  (Failure: SSH connection failed)
>> 
>> * integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb 
>> (Failure: 'Failed to assign load balancer rule')
>> 
>> * 
>> integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
>>   (Failure: test case issue)
>> 
>> * :setup 
>> (Failure: test setup issue)
>> KVM Basic
>> 
>> * integration.smoke.test_volumes.TestVolumes.test_02_attach_volume 
>> (Failure: SSH connection failed)
>> 
>> * integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm 
>> (Failure: Timed out waiting for SSVM agent to be Up)
>> 
>> * integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm 
>> (Failure: Timed out waiting for SSVM agent to be Up)
>> 
>> * 
>> integration.smoke.test_vm_life_cycle.TestVMLifeCycle.test_10_attachAndDetach_iso
>>  (Failure: SSH connection failed)
>> 
>> 
>> KVM Adv
>> 
>> * 
>> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
>>   (Failure: SSH connection failed)
>> 
>> * 
>> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
>>  (Failure: SSH connection failed)
>> 
>> * 
>> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb
>>  (Failure: SSH connection failed)
>> 
>> * integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb 
>> (Failure: 'Failed to assign load balancer rule')
>> 
>> * 
>> integration.smoke.test_snapshots.TestSnapshotRootDisk.test_01_snapshot_root_disk
>>  (Failure: 'Failed to create snapshot due to an internal error creating 
>> snapshot)
>> 
>> * :setup 
>> (Failure: test setup issue)
>> 
>> * integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm 
>> (Failure: Timed out waiting for SSVM agent to be Up)
>> 
>> * integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm 
>> (Failure: Timed out waiting for SSVM agent to be Up)
> 

[Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py

[Raja Pullela]

Hi,

Filed this blocker on test case "test_scale_vm.py"  - 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8924
Fixing this will bring Simulator Basic and XS Basic to 100% passrate.

Best,
Raja

test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Miguel or someone's familiar with this test,

Can you please provide documentation around how to get these tests running ?
BTW - looks like this is a new test that was added on Aug 25th 2015.

Thanks,
Raja

=== TestName: None | Status : EXCEPTION ===
ERROR

==
ERROR: test suite for 
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 209, in run
self.setUp()
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 292, in 
setUp
self.setupContext(ancestor)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 315, in 
setupContext
try_run(context, names)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/util.py", line 470, in 
try_run
return func()
  File "/root/cloudstack/test/integration/smoke/test_nicira_controller.py", 
line 46, in setUpClass
cls.nicira_hosts  = cls.config.niciraNvp.hosts
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'hosts'
 >> begin captured stdout << -
=== TestName: None | Status : EXCEPTION ===


- >> end captured stdout << --
 >> begin captured logging << 
CSLog: CRITICAL: EXCEPTION: None: ['Traceback (most recent call last):\n', '  
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 209, in run\n 
   self.setUp()\n', '  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 292, in setUp\n
self.setupContext(ancestor)\n', '  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 315, in 
setupContext\ntry_run(context, names)\n', '  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/util.py", line 470, in try_run\n   
 return func()\n', '  File 
"/root/cloudstack/test/integration/smoke/test_nicira_controller.py", line 46, 
in setUpClass\ncls.nicira_hosts  = cls.config.niciraNvp.hosts\n', 
"AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'hosts'\n"]
- >> end captured logging << -

--
XML: /root/marvinxKcIvFqe/results.xml
--
Ran 0 tests in 0.002s

FAILED (errors=1)

RE: [Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py

[Raja Pullela]

Sebastien, any BVT tests failing is a blocker and needs to be fixed - which is 
the reason for Blocker.  We already have a fix.   

Koushik, 

modified the test "test_01_scale_vm" with required_hardware=false on simulator 
setup and it works.  So, I think we can let the second method go.  I will also 
test this on XS.
Raja


root@localhost:~/cloudstack# nosetests --with-marvin 
--marvin-config=/root/cloudstack/setup/dev/local1.cfg --zone=Sandbox-simulator 
--hypervisor=simulator -a tags=basic,required_hardware=false 
/root/cloudstack/test/integration/smoke/test_scale_vm.py

 Marvin Init Started 

=== Marvin Parse Config Successful ===

=== Marvin Setting TestData Successful===

 Log Folder Path: /tmp//MarvinLogs//Sep_30_2015_08_06_32_AWNF1O. All logs 
will be available here 

=== Marvin Init Logging Successful===

 Marvin Init Successful 
===final results are now copied to: /tmp//MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD===
root@localhost:~/cloudstack# cd /tmp//MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD
root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# ls
failed_plus_exceptions.txt  results.txt  runinfo.txt
root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# vi  results.txt
root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# ls -al
total 48
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root  4096 Sep 30 08:07 .
drwxr-xr-x 8 root root  4096 Sep 30 08:06 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Sep 30 08:06 failed_plus_exceptions.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root   186 Sep 30 08:06 results.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 36164 Sep 30 08:06 runinfo.txt
root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD#
root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# cat results.txt
Test scale virtual machine ... === TestName: test_01_scale_vm | Status : 
SUCCESS ===
ok

--
Ran 1 test in 23.455s

OK

-Original Message-
From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:04 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py


> On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Koushik Das  wrote:
> 
> Raja,
> The earlier scale vm test couldn't run on simulator because of the validation 
> steps (IIRC it tries to connect to the real VM created during test). Since it 
> wasn't possible to run with simulator, the new test was added to run just on 
> the simulator. Check the required_hardware tag.
> 

Ok so that’s not really a blocker. 

Can we reduce the severity to major ?
Or send a PR that will add this to the Travis run and run the correct test for 
simulator ?

Or make you modifications in your BVT settings, re-run and close the issue ?



> -Original Message-
> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2015 12:12
> To: CloudStack Dev (dev@cloudstack.apache.org)
> Subject: [Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Filed this blocker on test case "test_scale_vm.py"  - 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8924
> Fixing this will bring Simulator Basic and XS Basic to 100% passrate.
> 
> Best,
> Raja
> 

RE: BVT report 9/29

[Raja Pullela]

Miguel, please see the defect 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8924
Let me know if you have any questions,
Raja

-Original Message-
From: Miguel Ferreira [mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:43 PM
To: Sebastien Goasguen 
Cc: dev ; Boris Schrijver ; 
Pierre-Luc Dion ; Milamber 
Subject: Re: BVT report 9/29

Hi Sebastian,

On 29 Sep 2015, at 20:42, Sebastien Goasguen 
mailto:run...@gmail.com>> wrote:

@miguel, looks like smoke/test_scale_vm is reporting errors. It seems you were 
the last one to touch that test. Could you try to run the tests on some 
cloudstack setup you have and report back to use your finding. From below you 
can see, the test seems to be failing on simulator/basic.

It would be nice to have the output of the tests to troubleshoot...
Anyway, I’m going to build an environment to run the 
“integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics”
 test.

From the list you sent I can see that the test is being ran against XS. That 
should not be a problem, however that test is a dumbed down, mean for simulator 
only, version of the other test in that same file. The other one is the one 
that actually tries to connect to the VM, and that’s the one that should be 
running against real hypervisors.
Have a look at the PR where that test was introduced if you want to have the 
full context. (https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/741)

I’ll let you guys know if I can run the test or not, and what’s the output.


\ Miguel Ferreira
   mferre...@schubergphilis.com

RE: [Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py

[Raja Pullela]

Yup... btw, I am on top of this and goal is to get to 100% passrate on BVTs!  

-Original Message-
From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:48 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py


> On Sep 30, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Raja Pullela  wrote:
> 
> Sebastien, any BVT tests failing is a blocker and needs to be fixed - which 
> is the reason for Blocker.  We already have a fix.   
> 

Right, but that’s a fix in the test itself, no an issue with the cloudstack 
“core”.

In any case, great, one less blocker. 

> Koushik,
> 
> modified the test "test_01_scale_vm" with required_hardware=false on 
> simulator setup and it works.  So, I think we can let the second method go.  
> I will also test this on XS.
> Raja
> 
> 
> root@localhost:~/cloudstack# nosetests --with-marvin 
> --marvin-config=/root/cloudstack/setup/dev/local1.cfg 
> --zone=Sandbox-simulator --hypervisor=simulator -a 
> tags=basic,required_hardware=false 
> /root/cloudstack/test/integration/smoke/test_scale_vm.py
> 
>  Marvin Init Started 
> 
> === Marvin Parse Config Successful ===
> 
> === Marvin Setting TestData Successful===
> 
>  Log Folder Path: /tmp//MarvinLogs//Sep_30_2015_08_06_32_AWNF1O. 
> All logs will be available here 
> 
> === Marvin Init Logging Successful===
> 
>  Marvin Init Successful 
> ===final results are now copied to: 
> /tmp//MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD===
> root@localhost:~/cloudstack# cd /tmp//MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD
> root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# ls 
> failed_plus_exceptions.txt  results.txt  runinfo.txt 
> root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# vi  results.txt 
> root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# ls -al total 48 
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root  4096 Sep 30 08:07 .
> drwxr-xr-x 8 root root  4096 Sep 30 08:06 ..
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Sep 30 08:06 failed_plus_exceptions.txt
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root   186 Sep 30 08:06 results.txt
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 36164 Sep 30 08:06 runinfo.txt 
> root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD#
> root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# cat results.txt 
> Test scale virtual machine ... === TestName: test_01_scale_vm | Status 
> : SUCCESS === ok
> 
> --
> Ran 1 test in 23.455s
> 
> OK
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:04 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py
> 
> 
>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Koushik Das  wrote:
>> 
>> Raja,
>> The earlier scale vm test couldn't run on simulator because of the 
>> validation steps (IIRC it tries to connect to the real VM created during 
>> test). Since it wasn't possible to run with simulator, the new test was 
>> added to run just on the simulator. Check the required_hardware tag.
>> 
> 
> Ok so that’s not really a blocker. 
> 
> Can we reduce the severity to major ?
> Or send a PR that will add this to the Travis run and run the correct test 
> for simulator ?
> 
> Or make you modifications in your BVT settings, re-run and close the issue ?
> 
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2015 12:12
>> To: CloudStack Dev (dev@cloudstack.apache.org)
>> Subject: [Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Filed this blocker on test case "test_scale_vm.py"  - 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8924
>> Fixing this will bring Simulator Basic and XS Basic to 100% passrate.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Raja
>> 
> 

RE: jenkins disk full ?

[Raja Pullela]

Yes, please give access to PL or couple of other folks - Rajani or other PMC 
members?

-Original Message-
From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:rajani.karut...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:51 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Pierre-Luc Dion ; tall...@apache.org
Subject: Re: jenkins disk full ?

Thanks david. Do you know if anyone else has access to this? if not, can you 
give access to PL please?

~Rajani



On 30-Sep-2015, at 1:13 pm, David Nalley  wrote:

> The below is before I cleaned up a bit. We now have 3.2GB free.
> 
> [root@domU-12-31-39-15-22-2D jobs]# du -h -d 1 1.3G 
> ./package-rhel63-master 200M ./cloudstack-4.3-maven-build-noredist
> 638M ./package-rhel63-4.5
> 1.1G ./cloudstack-4.4-systemvm64
> 1.3M ./build-4.5
> 8.0K ./cloudstack-master-with-patch
> 186M ./build-test-archive-4.4
> 2.9M ./test-smoke-matrix-master
> 100K ./Create-Release-Packages
> 1.5M ./test-packaging-4.4
> 214M ./build-test-archive-master
> 612K ./cloudstack.apt-get.eu-systemvm
> 88M ./built-test-archive
> 4.2M ./simulator-4.5-singlerun
> 424K ./test-tabnanny-4.4
> 2.2G ./build-master
> 124M ./cloudstack-4.4-systemvm
> 331M ./package-centos7-4.4.4-noredist
> 804K ./cloudstack-4.4-maven-build
> 3.4M ./cloudstack-4.3-maven-build
> 645M ./package-centos7-master
> 80M ./test-fetch-marvin-master
> 180M ./parameterized-slowbuild
> 508K ./cloudstack.apt-get.eu-noredis-rhel
> 104K ./dockerbuild-master-marvin
> 9.1M ./test-regression-matrix-master
> 345M ./cloudstack-4.3-package-deb
> 3.8G ./parameterized-sytemvm
> 26M ./HyperVAgent4.3
> 510M ./cloudstack-4.3-package-rpm
> 1.5M ./test-packaging-master
> 7.2M ./build-docs-admin-master
> 8.3M ./cloudstack-marvin-master
> 1013M ./cloudstack-4.3-systemvm
> 131M ./run-checkin-tests
> 2.5M ./simulator-gate
> 145M ./cloudstack-master-twiceweekly-coverity
> 3.2M ./cloudstack-4.4-hyperv-agent
> 104K ./test-setup-advancedzone-master
> 1.1G ./master-slowbuild
> 44M ./cloudstack-master
> 301M ./package-centos7-master-noredist 396K ./test-tabnanny-master 
> 816K ./simulator-build 20K ./test-libcloud 236K 
> ./test-smoke-matrix-4.3 4.9M ./dockerbuild-4.5-simulator 331M 
> ./package-centos7-4.4-noredist 632K 
> ./cloudstack.apt-get.eu-noredis-deb
> 144K ./dockerbuild-master-management_centos6
> 292M ./package-centos6-4.6
> 9.4M ./stop-jetty
> 326M ./cloudstack-4.4-package-rpm
> 40K ./mgmt-build-reviewboard-requests
> 20K ./build-test-centos-builtin
> 76K ./simulator-deploydb
> 20K ./Master - Python Static Code Analysis 53M ./test-smoke-matrix-4.4 
> 442M ./build-master-slowbuild 376K ./build-docs-niciranvp-master 840K 
> ./test-matrix-4.4 2.7M ./dockerbuild-master-simulator 21M 
> ./build-docs-install-master 50M ./test-fetch-marvin-4.4 789M 
> ./cloudstack-rpm-packages-with-branch-parameter
> 5.3G ./build-systemvm-4.5
> 1.1G ./cloudstack-4.3-systemvm64
> 3.2M ./build-docs-release-notes-master 8.0K 
> ./cloudstack-master-codecoverage 121M ./fastsimulatorbuild 4.3M 
> ./cloudstack-4.4-marvin 352M ./build-master-noredist 7.2M 
> ./test-setup-advancedzone-4.4 3.3M ./cloudstack-master-hyperv-agent 
> 1.9G ./build-systemvm64-master 29M ./start-jetty 3.4M 
> ./simulator-4.4-integration-tests 264M ./build-4.5-noredist 2.0G 
> ./package-deb-master 576K ./build-master-simulator 137M 
> ./mgmt-update-nonoss-libs 11M ./test-matrix-extended-master 235M 
> ./cloudstack-4.4-maven-build-noredist
> 5.3M ./simulator-hotfix-trigger
> 8.0K ./cloudstack-maven-build-with-branch-parameter
> 2.7M ./test-yumrepo-refresh-master
> 1.3G ./cloudstack-4.5-hyperv-agent
> 1.6M ./Build-by-Branch
> 3.5G ./build-systemvm-master
> 369M ./package-deb-4.6
> 172K ./test-maintenance-operations-4.4 48K 
> ./cloudstack-4.3-package-rpm-noredist
> 532K ./build-docs-vxlan-master
> 18M ./build-docs-devguide-master
> 456K ./test-environment-refresh-master 876K ./test-matrix-master 2.1M 
> ./test-yumrepo-refresh-4.4 51M ./test-environment-refresh-4.4 6.3M 
> ./simulator-singlerun 724M ./package-deb-4.5 16M ./docs-4.3-gsoc-guide 
> 384K ./test-matrix-extended-4.4 20K ./pull-requests 204K 
> ./build-docs-midonet-master 358M ./cloudstack-4.4-package-deb 506M 
> ./build-master-jdk18 2.3M ./cloudstack.apt-get.eu-noredis-centos7
> 499M ./package-centos7-4.6
> 119M ./build-4.5-simulator
> 12K ./cloudstack-4.2-systemvm_test
> 1.6M ./test-regression-matrix-4.4
> 144K ./build-systemvm64-master-with-debian8
> 12K ./cloudstack-4.2-systemvm
> 12K ./cloudstack-4.2-systemvm64
> 3.1M ./cloudstack-4.4-auto-marvin
> 334M ./package-rhel63-master-noredist
> 6.8M ./test-maintenance-operations-master
> 36G .
> 
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Pierre-Luc Dion  wrote:
>> David, Do you think you could do another cleanup on  the master of j.bac.o ?
>> 
>> Could you list the jobs that consume most of the spaces?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Rajani Karuturi 
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi David,
>>> disk space issue again. Can you please do a little more cleanup?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/computer/c

RE: jenkins disk full ?

[Raja Pullela]

Btw, edison, pradeep, rayeesn - are not active anymore - talluri may be?   I 
think. 

-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 2:01 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Pierre-Luc Dion ; tall...@apache.org
Subject: Re: jenkins disk full ?

Right now these folks have access:

ewanm:x:1002:1002::/home/ewanm:/bin/bash
prasanna:x:1003:1003::/home/prasanna:/bin/bash
salvatore:x:1004:1004::/home/salvatore:/bin/bash
edison:x:1005:1005::/home/edison:/bin/bash
pradeep:x:1006:1006::/home/pradeep:/bin/bash
rayeesn:x:1007:1007::/home/rayeesn:/bin/bash
hugot:x:1008:1008::/home/hugot:/bin/bash
talluri:x:1009:1009::/home/talluri:/bin/bash
dahn:x:1010:1010::/home/dahn:/bin/bash

PL or other folks who want access, send me a ssh pub key off list.

--David

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Rajani Karuturi  
wrote:
> Thanks david. Do you know if anyone else has access to this? if not, can you 
> give access to PL please?
>
> ~Rajani
>
>
>
> On 30-Sep-2015, at 1:13 pm, David Nalley  wrote:
>
>> The below is before I cleaned up a bit. We now have 3.2GB free.
>>
>> [root@domU-12-31-39-15-22-2D jobs]# du -h -d 1 1.3G 
>> ./package-rhel63-master 200M ./cloudstack-4.3-maven-build-noredist
>> 638M ./package-rhel63-4.5
>> 1.1G ./cloudstack-4.4-systemvm64
>> 1.3M ./build-4.5
>> 8.0K ./cloudstack-master-with-patch
>> 186M ./build-test-archive-4.4
>> 2.9M ./test-smoke-matrix-master
>> 100K ./Create-Release-Packages
>> 1.5M ./test-packaging-4.4
>> 214M ./build-test-archive-master
>> 612K ./cloudstack.apt-get.eu-systemvm 88M ./built-test-archive 4.2M 
>> ./simulator-4.5-singlerun 424K ./test-tabnanny-4.4 2.2G 
>> ./build-master 124M ./cloudstack-4.4-systemvm 331M 
>> ./package-centos7-4.4.4-noredist 804K ./cloudstack-4.4-maven-build 
>> 3.4M ./cloudstack-4.3-maven-build 645M ./package-centos7-master 80M 
>> ./test-fetch-marvin-master 180M ./parameterized-slowbuild 508K 
>> ./cloudstack.apt-get.eu-noredis-rhel
>> 104K ./dockerbuild-master-marvin
>> 9.1M ./test-regression-matrix-master
>> 345M ./cloudstack-4.3-package-deb
>> 3.8G ./parameterized-sytemvm
>> 26M ./HyperVAgent4.3
>> 510M ./cloudstack-4.3-package-rpm
>> 1.5M ./test-packaging-master
>> 7.2M ./build-docs-admin-master
>> 8.3M ./cloudstack-marvin-master
>> 1013M ./cloudstack-4.3-systemvm
>> 131M ./run-checkin-tests
>> 2.5M ./simulator-gate
>> 145M ./cloudstack-master-twiceweekly-coverity
>> 3.2M ./cloudstack-4.4-hyperv-agent
>> 104K ./test-setup-advancedzone-master 1.1G ./master-slowbuild 44M 
>> ./cloudstack-master 301M ./package-centos7-master-noredist 396K 
>> ./test-tabnanny-master 816K ./simulator-build 20K ./test-libcloud 
>> 236K ./test-smoke-matrix-4.3 4.9M ./dockerbuild-4.5-simulator 331M 
>> ./package-centos7-4.4-noredist 632K 
>> ./cloudstack.apt-get.eu-noredis-deb
>> 144K ./dockerbuild-master-management_centos6
>> 292M ./package-centos6-4.6
>> 9.4M ./stop-jetty
>> 326M ./cloudstack-4.4-package-rpm
>> 40K ./mgmt-build-reviewboard-requests 20K ./build-test-centos-builtin 
>> 76K ./simulator-deploydb 20K ./Master - Python Static Code Analysis 
>> 53M ./test-smoke-matrix-4.4 442M ./build-master-slowbuild 376K 
>> ./build-docs-niciranvp-master 840K ./test-matrix-4.4 2.7M 
>> ./dockerbuild-master-simulator 21M ./build-docs-install-master 50M 
>> ./test-fetch-marvin-4.4 789M 
>> ./cloudstack-rpm-packages-with-branch-parameter
>> 5.3G ./build-systemvm-4.5
>> 1.1G ./cloudstack-4.3-systemvm64
>> 3.2M ./build-docs-release-notes-master 8.0K 
>> ./cloudstack-master-codecoverage 121M ./fastsimulatorbuild 4.3M 
>> ./cloudstack-4.4-marvin 352M ./build-master-noredist 7.2M 
>> ./test-setup-advancedzone-4.4 3.3M ./cloudstack-master-hyperv-agent 
>> 1.9G ./build-systemvm64-master 29M ./start-jetty 3.4M 
>> ./simulator-4.4-integration-tests 264M ./build-4.5-noredist 2.0G 
>> ./package-deb-master 576K ./build-master-simulator 137M 
>> ./mgmt-update-nonoss-libs 11M ./test-matrix-extended-master 235M 
>> ./cloudstack-4.4-maven-build-noredist
>> 5.3M ./simulator-hotfix-trigger
>> 8.0K ./cloudstack-maven-build-with-branch-parameter
>> 2.7M ./test-yumrepo-refresh-master
>> 1.3G ./cloudstack-4.5-hyperv-agent
>> 1.6M ./Build-by-Branch
>> 3.5G ./build-systemvm-master
>> 369M ./package-deb-4.6
>> 172K ./test-maintenance-operations-4.4 48K 
>> ./cloudstack-4.3-package-rpm-noredist
>> 532K ./build-docs-vxlan-master
>> 18M ./build-docs-devguide-master
>> 456K ./test-environment-refresh-master 876K ./test-matrix-master 2.1M 
>> ./test-yumrepo-refresh-4.4 51M ./test-environment-refresh-4.4 6.3M 
>> ./simulator-singlerun 724M ./package-deb-4.5 16M 
>> ./docs-4.3-gsoc-guide 384K ./test-matrix-extended-4.4 20K 
>> ./pull-requests 204K ./build-docs-midonet-master 358M 
>> ./cloudstack-4.4-package-deb 506M ./build-master-jdk18 2.3M 
>> ./cloudstack.apt-get.eu-noredis-centos7
>> 499M ./package-centos7-4.6
>> 119M ./build-4.5-simulator
>> 12K ./cloudstack-4.2-systemvm_test
>> 1.6M ./test-regression-matrix-4.4
>> 144K ./build-systemvm64-master-wit

RE: [Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py

[Raja Pullela]

The problem needs to be fixed - "have tested a solution that was discussed with 
koushik" - we will have to create PR with that change.  Once the PR is pushed - 
we will have one less blocker/test failure.  

I agree this is not a cloudstack core code problem - but we should NOT make 
that a criteria for priority of a bug - just my take.  We should include BVT 
failures in the Blocker criteria (whether the fix is in the core 
functionality/test script).  Otherwise, we will not hit 100% passrate on BVTs. 

You are right - only a subset of these tests are being run on "travis" 
otherwise we will catch more or some of these failures.  

-Original Message-
From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 2:09 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py


> On Sep 30, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Raja Pullela  wrote:
> 
> Yup... btw, I am on top of this and goal is to get to 100% passrate on BVTs!  
> 

Yes I got it, and we all have the same goal.

It does appear that not all smoke tests are run by Travis, otherwise we would 
catch any errors on simulator for every PR.

My point is that if a failure in your BVT is due to the test itself it is not a 
cloudstack failure per se and hence not a blocker. Which all said and done is 
not a problem because it should be fixed now if I am understanding your 
assessment and Koushik report of this failure correctly.



> -Original Message-
> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:48 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py
> 
> 
>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Raja Pullela  wrote:
>> 
>> Sebastien, any BVT tests failing is a blocker and needs to be fixed - which 
>> is the reason for Blocker.  We already have a fix.   
>> 
> 
> Right, but that’s a fix in the test itself, no an issue with the cloudstack 
> “core”.
> 
> In any case, great, one less blocker. 
> 
>> Koushik,
>> 
>> modified the test "test_01_scale_vm" with required_hardware=false on 
>> simulator setup and it works.  So, I think we can let the second method go.  
>> I will also test this on XS.
>> Raja
>> 
>> 
>> root@localhost:~/cloudstack# nosetests --with-marvin 
>> --marvin-config=/root/cloudstack/setup/dev/local1.cfg
>> --zone=Sandbox-simulator --hypervisor=simulator -a 
>> tags=basic,required_hardware=false
>> /root/cloudstack/test/integration/smoke/test_scale_vm.py
>> 
>>  Marvin Init Started 
>> 
>> === Marvin Parse Config Successful ===
>> 
>> === Marvin Setting TestData Successful===
>> 
>>  Log Folder Path: /tmp//MarvinLogs//Sep_30_2015_08_06_32_AWNF1O. 
>> All logs will be available here 
>> 
>> === Marvin Init Logging Successful===
>> 
>>  Marvin Init Successful 
>> ===final results are now copied to: 
>> /tmp//MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD===
>> root@localhost:~/cloudstack# cd /tmp//MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD
>> root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# ls 
>> failed_plus_exceptions.txt  results.txt  runinfo.txt 
>> root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# vi  results.txt 
>> root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# ls -al total 48 
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root  4096 Sep 30 08:07 .
>> drwxr-xr-x 8 root root  4096 Sep 30 08:06 ..
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Sep 30 08:06 failed_plus_exceptions.txt
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root   186 Sep 30 08:06 results.txt
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 36164 Sep 30 08:06 runinfo.txt 
>> root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD#
>> root@localhost:/tmp/MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_OPS7AD# cat results.txt 
>> Test scale virtual machine ... === TestName: test_01_scale_vm | 
>> Status
>> : SUCCESS === ok
>> 
>> -
>> -
>> Ran 1 test in 23.455s
>> 
>> OK
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:04 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [Blocker] test duplicated in test_scale_vm.py
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Koushik Das  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Raja,
>>> The earlier scale vm test couldn't run on simulator because of the 
>>> validation steps (IIRC it tries to connect to the real VM created during 
>>> test). Since it wasn't possible to run with simulator, the new test was 
>>> added to run just on the simulator. Chec

RE: BVT report 9/29

[Raja Pullela]

thanks Miguel for confirming!  I will get the PR to close this out.  

-Original Message-
From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 2:57 PM
To: Miguel Ferreira 
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: BVT report 9/29

Thanks a lot Miguel, 

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Miguel Ferreira  
> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> Following the instructions I had posted in the original PR 
> (https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/741#issuecomment-135415998) I can 
> reproduce the same result. That is, the test passes against the simulator 
> with an Advanced zone:
>> [root@cs1 cloudstack]# nosetests --with-marvin 
>> --marvin-config=setup/dev/advanced.cfg   
>> test/integration/smoke/test_scale_vm.py -s -a 
>> tags=advanced,required_hardware=false   --zone=Sandbox-simulator 
>> --hypervisor=simulator
>> 
>>  Marvin Init Started 
>> 
>> === Marvin Parse Config Successful ===
>> 
>> === Marvin Setting TestData Successful===
>> 
>>  Log Folder Path: /tmp//MarvinLogs//Sep_30_2015_08_42_56_AFB6G9. 
>> All logs will be available here 
>> 
>> === Marvin Init Logging Successful===
>> 
>>  Marvin Init Successful 
>> === TestName: test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics | Status 
>> : SUCCESS ===
>> 
>> ===final results are now copied to: 
>> /tmp//MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_AKT78U===
> 
> 
> I could reproduce the error reported here 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8924 by running both test 1 
> and test 2 together (toggling require hardware to false in test 1).
>> [root@cs1 cloudstack]# nosetests --with-marvin 
>> --marvin-config=setup/dev/advanced.cfg   
>> test/integration/smoke/test_scale_vm.py -s -a 
>> tags=advanced,required_hardware=false   --zone=Sandbox-simulator 
>> --hypervisor=simulator
>> 
>>  Marvin Init Started 
>> 
>> === Marvin Parse Config Successful ===
>> 
>> === Marvin Setting TestData Successful===
>> 
>>  Log Folder Path: /tmp//MarvinLogs//Sep_30_2015_08_46_16_U8QJEI. 
>> All logs will be available here 
>> 
>> === Marvin Init Logging Successful===
>> 
>>  Marvin Init Successful 
>> === TestName: test_01_scale_vm | Status : SUCCESS ===
>> 
>> === TestName: test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics | Status 
>> : EXCEPTION ===
>> 
>> ===final results are now copied to: 
>> /tmp//MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_4DVZLG===
> 
> 
> That seems to me like cleanup is not being performed between the two tests.
> However, like Raja already indicated in the JIRA issue, we wouldn’t need test 
> 2 if test 1 works well in the simulator (as it seems to work). 
> In short, we could get rid of test 
> “test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics” altogether.
> 
> Having adapted the basic.cfg (basic zone config) to enable vm scaling, I can 
> reproduce the same results. Test 
> “test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics" by it self passes.
> 
>> [root@cs1 cloudstack]# nosetests --with-marvin 
>> --marvin-config=setup/dev/advanced.cfg   
>> test/integration/smoke/test_scale_vm.py -s -a 
>> tags=basic,required_hardware=false   --zone=Sandbox-simulator 
>> --hypervisor=simulator
>> 
>>  Marvin Init Started 
>> 
>> === Marvin Parse Config Successful ===
>> 
>> === Marvin Setting TestData Successful===
>> 
>>  Log Folder Path: /tmp//MarvinLogs//Sep_30_2015_09_11_44_KWEPUS. 
>> All logs will be available here 
>> 
>> === Marvin Init Logging Successful===
>> 
>>  Marvin Init Successful 
>> === TestName: test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics | Status 
>> : SUCCESS ===
>> 
>> ===final results are now copied to: 
>> /tmp//MarvinLogs/test_scale_vm_2IQ0MJ===
> 
> 
> Running both tests together fails due to missing cleanup between tests:
>> [root@cs1 cloudstack]# nosetests --with-marvin 
>> --marvin-config=setup/dev/advanced.cfg   
>> test/integration/smoke/test_scale_vm.py -s -a 
>> tags=basic,required_hardware=false   --zone=Sandbox-simulator 
>> --hypervisor=simulator
>> 
>>  Marvin Init Started 
>> 
>> === Marvin Parse Config Successful ===
>> 
>> === Marvin Setting TestData Successful===
>> 
>>  Log Folder Path: /tmp//MarvinLogs//Sep_30_2015_09_13_45_5NC2QK. 
>> All logs will be available here 
>> 
>> === Marvin Init Logging Successful===
>> 
>>  Marvin Init Successful 
>> === TestName: test_01_scale_vm | Status : SUCCESS

RE: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

[Raja Pullela]

thanks Miguel !

From: Miguel Ferreira [mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:01 PM
To: Raja Pullela 
Cc: dev 
Subject: Re: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

Hi Raja,

That test needs a NSX cluster. With that in place, the configuration used to 
run the test must define a section called NiciraNvp, and that section should 
have an array os hosts with that name (see line 46 of the test).
In a Marvin config that materializes in something like this:
"niciraNvp": {

"hosts": [ "nsxcon1.cloud.lan", "nsxcon2.cloud.lan" ]
}

Furthermore, you need to have a zone configured to use NSX and that requires 
more work.
You can find a full Marvin config for it here: 
https://github.com/schubergphilis/MCT-shared/blob/master/marvin/mct-zone1-kvm1-NVP.cfg
In that same git repo there are config files for deploying a NSX cluster 
(https://github.com/schubergphilis/MCT-shared/blob/master/deploy/cloud/nsx_cluster.conf).
However, we have not yet fully automated all the steps needed to get the 
cluster up and running (ie. setting up the cluster internals, and adding a more 
controllers to the cluster).
I can help you with that if you need.

Cheers,
\ Miguel Ferreira
   mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>



On 30 Sep 2015, at 09:05, Raja Pullela 
mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com>> wrote:

Hi Miguel or someone's familiar with this test,

Can you please provide documentation around how to get these tests running ?
BTW - looks like this is a new test that was added on Aug 25th 2015.

Thanks,
Raja

=== TestName: None | Status : EXCEPTION ===
ERROR

==
ERROR: test suite for 
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
 File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 209, in run
   self.setUp()
 File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 292, in setUp
   self.setupContext(ancestor)
 File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 315, in 
setupContext
   try_run(context, names)
 File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/util.py", line 470, in 
try_run
   return func()
 File "/root/cloudstack/test/integration/smoke/test_nicira_controller.py", line 
46, in setUpClass
   cls.nicira_hosts  = cls.config.niciraNvp.hosts
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'hosts'
 >> begin captured stdout << -
=== TestName: None | Status : EXCEPTION ===


- >> end captured stdout << --
 >> begin captured logging << 
CSLog: CRITICAL: EXCEPTION: None: ['Traceback (most recent call last):\n', '  
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 209, in run\n 
   self.setUp()\n', '  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 292, in setUp\n
self.setupContext(ancestor)\n', '  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 315, in 
setupContext\ntry_run(context, names)\n', '  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/util.py", line 470, in try_run\n   
 return func()\n', '  File 
"/root/cloudstack/test/integration/smoke/test_nicira_controller.py", line 46, 
in setUpClass\ncls.nicira_hosts  = cls.config.niciraNvp.hosts\n', 
"AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'hosts'\n"]
- >> end captured logging << -

--
XML: /root/marvinxKcIvFqe/results.xml
--
Ran 0 tests in 0.002s

FAILED (errors=1)

RE: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Miguel,

Can you please add some checking in the setup method for the configuration 
parameters and if it is not available, can you skip this test?

Raja

-Original Message-
From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 5:52 PM
To: Miguel Ferreira 
Cc: dev 
Subject: RE: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

thanks Miguel !

From: Miguel Ferreira [mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:01 PM
To: Raja Pullela 
Cc: dev 
Subject: Re: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

Hi Raja,

That test needs a NSX cluster. With that in place, the configuration used to 
run the test must define a section called NiciraNvp, and that section should 
have an array os hosts with that name (see line 46 of the test).
In a Marvin config that materializes in something like this:
"niciraNvp": {

"hosts": [ "nsxcon1.cloud.lan", "nsxcon2.cloud.lan" ]
}

Furthermore, you need to have a zone configured to use NSX and that requires 
more work.
You can find a full Marvin config for it here: 
https://github.com/schubergphilis/MCT-shared/blob/master/marvin/mct-zone1-kvm1-NVP.cfg
In that same git repo there are config files for deploying a NSX cluster 
(https://github.com/schubergphilis/MCT-shared/blob/master/deploy/cloud/nsx_cluster.conf).
However, we have not yet fully automated all the steps needed to get the 
cluster up and running (ie. setting up the cluster internals, and adding a more 
controllers to the cluster).
I can help you with that if you need.

Cheers,
\ Miguel Ferreira
   mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>



On 30 Sep 2015, at 09:05, Raja Pullela 
mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com>> wrote:

Hi Miguel or someone's familiar with this test,

Can you please provide documentation around how to get these tests running ?
BTW - looks like this is a new test that was added on Aug 25th 2015.

Thanks,
Raja

=== TestName: None | Status : EXCEPTION === ERROR

==
ERROR: test suite for 
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
 File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 209, in run
   self.setUp()
 File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 292, in setUp
   self.setupContext(ancestor)
 File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 315, in 
setupContext
   try_run(context, names)
 File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/util.py", line 470, in 
try_run
   return func()
 File "/root/cloudstack/test/integration/smoke/test_nicira_controller.py", line 
46, in setUpClass
   cls.nicira_hosts  = cls.config.niciraNvp.hosts
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'hosts'
 >> begin captured stdout << - === 
TestName: None | Status : EXCEPTION ===


- >> end captured stdout << --
 >> begin captured logging << 
CSLog: CRITICAL: EXCEPTION: None: ['Traceback (most recent call last):\n', '  
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 209, in run\n 
   self.setUp()\n', '  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 292, in setUp\n
self.setupContext(ancestor)\n', '  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/suite.py", line 315, in 
setupContext\ntry_run(context, names)\n', '  File 
"/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nose/util.py", line 470, in try_run\n   
 return func()\n', '  File 
"/root/cloudstack/test/integration/smoke/test_nicira_controller.py", line 46, 
in setUpClass\ncls.nicira_hosts  = cls.config.niciraNvp.hosts\n', 
"AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'hosts'\n"]
- >> end captured logging << -

--
XML: /root/marvinxKcIvFqe/results.xml
--
Ran 0 tests in 0.002s

FAILED (errors=1)

BVT report 10/1

[Raja Pullela]

Blockers - as open in ACS JIRA:

-  CloudStack-8927 /

-  CloudStack-8924 / Test case failure.  Waiting for PR-900/902 to be 
merged.

-  CloudStack-8923 /

-  CloudStack-8915 /

-  CloudStack-8876 /

-  CloudStack-8697 / related to test case failure: 
integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb

BVT report - 10/1 -
Summary:  Runs same as earlier run on 09/29 - merging PRs 900/902 will help get 
Simulator Basic and XS Basic to 100%.
Hope Rajani or Remi can push these PRs!


-  Simulator Basic - 97.6%, 1 test failed

-  Simulator Adv - 100%

-  XS Basic - 98.5%, 1 test failed

-  XS Adv - 94.5%, 4 tests failed

-  KVM Basic - 94.2%, 6 tests failed

-  KVM Adv - 92.6%, 8 tests failed

Test case failures:  No change from earlier report, waiting for couple of PRs 
to be merged

-  Simulator Basic

o   
integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
 //Failure: CloudStack-8924

-  XS Basic

o   
integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
 //Failure: CloudStack-8924

-  KVM Basic
o
integration.smoke.test_vm_life_cycle.TestVMLifeCycle.test_10_attachAndDetach_iso
  //Failure: SSH failed for VM
ointegration.smoke.test_volumes.TestVolumes.test_02_attach_volume  
//Failure: Root cause is TBD
ointegration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm  //Failure: Root 
cause is TBD

o   integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm  //Failure: Root 
cause is TBD

-  XS Adv

o:setup  // Failure: 
Test Setup.  Asked if Miguel can put conditional code to skip the test; 
assuming that this is passing in his Env.

o
integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
 //Failure: CloudStack-8924

o
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
 //Failure: SSH failed for VM

o
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
  //Failure: SSH failed for VM

o
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb  
//Failure: SSH failed for VM

o   integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb 
//Failure: CloudStack-8697

-  KVM Adv
o
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
 //Failure: SSH failed for VM
o
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
 //Failure: SSH failed for VM
o
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb 
//Failure: SSH failed for VM
o:setup  // Failure: 
Test Setup.  Asked if Miguel can put conditional code to skip the test; 
assuming that this is passing in his Env.
o
integration.smoke.test_snapshots.TestSnapshotRootDisk.test_01_snapshot_root_disk
  //Failure: Failed to create snapshot due to an internal error
o
integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm
 //Failure: Root cause is TBD
ointegration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm //Failure: Root 
cause is TBD
ointegration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb 
//Failure: CloudStack-8697
-end---

RE: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Miguel, 

I have a setup that runs pretty much everything we have under "smoke" folder as 
is.  So, was the request to skip if the config was not there.  

We can put proper error message as Koushik suggested:  "config not there or 
incorrect config".
With that change, it will work for you and with my setup.

I can put in the PR with the changes and you can comment if it works for you?

best,
Raja
-Original Message-
From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 4:34 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

I am not aware of anyone except Schuberg that uses the nicira (NSX) cloudstack 
integration.

And since Miguel wrote the test, I am comfortable doing what he suggests and 
not run it as part of the standard tests for a release.

-sebastien

On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Miguel Ferreira  
wrote:

> Can't we not run the test if we do not wish to do so?
> 
> \ Miguel Ferreira
>   mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 01 Oct 2015, at 12:11, Koushik Das 
> mailto:koushik@citrix.com>> wrote:
> 
> Can't we output a proper message (missing OR incorrect config) while skipping 
> the test?
> 
> On 01-Oct-2015, at 2:56 PM, Miguel Ferreira 
> mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Raja,
> 
> I don't agree with what you propose.
> I do understand your intention is to be able to run all tests and skip the 
> ones you don't have a config for.
> However, I also see the other side of that coin, when someone actually wants 
> to run the tests but makes a mistake in the config and the tests get skipped.
> 
> I think the test should fail if the config is not right, or otherwise be 
> excluded if the indentation is to not run them.
> 
> Cheers,
> \ Miguel Ferreira
> mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com> to:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 Sep 2015, at 19:40, Raja Pullela 
> mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com><mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com>>
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Miguel,
> 
> Can you please add some checking in the setup method for the configuration 
> parameters and if it is not available, can you skip this test?
> 
> Raja
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 5:52 PM
> To: Miguel Ferreira 
> mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com> lto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>>
> Cc: dev 
> mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org><mailto:de
> v...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
> Subject: RE: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, 
> KVM
> 
> thanks Miguel !
> 
> From: Miguel Ferreira [mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:01 PM
> To: Raja Pullela 
> mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com><mailto:raja.p
> ull...@citrix.com>>
> Cc: dev 
> mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org><mailto:de
> v...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
> Subject: Re: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, 
> KVM
> 
> Hi Raja,
> 
> That test needs a NSX cluster. With that in place, the configuration used to 
> run the test must define a section called NiciraNvp, and that section should 
> have an array os hosts with that name (see line 46 of the test).
> In a Marvin config that materializes in something like this:
> "niciraNvp": {
> 
> "hosts": [ "nsxcon1.cloud.lan", "nsxcon2.cloud.lan" ] }
> 
> Furthermore, you need to have a zone configured to use NSX and that requires 
> more work.
> You can find a full Marvin config for it here: 
> https://github.com/schubergphilis/MCT-shared/blob/master/marvin/mct-zo
> ne1-kvm1-NVP.cfg In that same git repo there are config files for 
> deploying a NSX cluster 
> (https://github.com/schubergphilis/MCT-shared/blob/master/deploy/cloud/nsx_cluster.conf).
> However, we have not yet fully automated all the steps needed to get the 
> cluster up and running (ie. setting up the cluster internals, and adding a 
> more controllers to the cluster).
> I can help you with that if you need.
> 
> Cheers,
> \ Miguel Ferreira
> mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com> to:mferre...@schubergphilis.com><mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 Sep 2015, at 09:05, Raja Pullela 
> mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com><mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com><mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com>>
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Miguel or someone's familiar with this test,
> 
> Can you please provide documenta

RE: BVT report 10/1

[Raja Pullela]

Cool, thanks Remi.  I am in the process of testing PR-902 as well.  
I will give a LGTM in another 2-3 hours, hopefully?

-Original Message-
From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 5:07 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: BVT report 10/1 

Thanks Raja,

Just merged #900. PR #902 doesn’t have any review yet. Once it got them, I’ll 
merge it as well.

I’m running BVT tests against some of the PRs that resolve blockers. Please 
help running the tests, as it takes quite some time. Without it, we risk of 
breaking things that were fixed before.

Regards,
Remi



On 01/10/15 13:20, "Raja Pullela"  wrote:

>Blockers - as open in ACS JIRA:
>
>-  CloudStack-8927 /
>
>-  CloudStack-8924 / Test case failure.  Waiting for PR-900/902 to be 
>merged.
>
>-  CloudStack-8923 /
>
>-  CloudStack-8915 /
>
>-  CloudStack-8876 /
>
>-  CloudStack-8697 / related to test case failure: 
>integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb
>
>BVT report - 10/1 -
>Summary:  Runs same as earlier run on 09/29 - merging PRs 900/902 will help 
>get Simulator Basic and XS Basic to 100%.
>Hope Rajani or Remi can push these PRs!
>
>
>-  Simulator Basic - 97.6%, 1 test failed
>
>-  Simulator Adv - 100%
>
>-  XS Basic - 98.5%, 1 test failed
>
>-  XS Adv - 94.5%, 4 tests failed
>
>-  KVM Basic - 94.2%, 6 tests failed
>
>-  KVM Adv - 92.6%, 8 tests failed
>
>Test case failures:  No change from earlier report, waiting for couple of PRs 
>to be merged
>
>-  Simulator Basic
>
>o   
>integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
> //Failure: CloudStack-8924
>
>-  XS Basic
>
>o   
>integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
> //Failure: CloudStack-8924
>
>-  KVM Basic
>o
>integration.smoke.test_vm_life_cycle.TestVMLifeCycle.test_10_attachAndDetach_iso
>  //Failure: SSH failed for VM
>ointegration.smoke.test_volumes.TestVolumes.test_02_attach_volume  
>//Failure: Root cause is TBD
>ointegration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm  //Failure: 
>Root cause is TBD
>
>o   integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm  //Failure: Root 
>cause is TBD
>
>-  XS Adv
>
>o:setup  // Failure: 
>Test Setup.  Asked if Miguel can put conditional code to skip the test; 
>assuming that this is passing in his Env.
>
>o
>integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
> //Failure: CloudStack-8924
>
>o
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
> //Failure: SSH failed for VM
>
>o
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
>  //Failure: SSH failed for VM
>
>o
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb  
>//Failure: SSH failed for VM
>
>o   integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb 
>//Failure: CloudStack-8697
>
>-  KVM Adv
>o
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
> //Failure: SSH failed for VM
>o
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
> //Failure: SSH failed for VM
>o
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb 
>//Failure: SSH failed for VM
>o:setup  // Failure: 
>Test Setup.  Asked if Miguel can put conditional code to skip the test; 
>assuming that this is passing in his Env.
>o
>integration.smoke.test_snapshots.TestSnapshotRootDisk.test_01_snapshot_root_disk
>  //Failure: Failed to create snapshot due to an internal error
>o
>integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm<http://ccp-tests.xenrt.xs.citrite.net/jenkins/job/Hollywood-BVT-Multi/CLOUDSTACK_CONFIG=AdvKVM/176/testReport/junit/integration.smoke.test_ssvm/TestSSVMs/test_08_reboot_cpvm/>
> //Failure: Root cause is TBD
>ointegration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm //Failure: Root 
>cause is TBD
>ointegration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb 
>//Failure: CloudStack-8697
>-end---

RE: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

[Raja Pullela]

ok, thanks Remi.  let me think if there is any other solution or please propose 
one?  
I would like to run all BVTs.  Another solution can be - since this is not a 
common (nicira) setup, can we move this test out of BVTs/smoke folder ?  

-Original Message-
From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 5:37 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

Hi Raja,

Skipping tests makes them invisible, I think that is Miguels point. 

Yesterday I run some tests and I almost reported all as OK only to realise it 
had skipped a test due to not having a certain setup. If it had failed, I would 
have noticed sooner.

Regards,
Remi




On 01/10/15 13:36, "Raja Pullela"  wrote:

>Hi Miguel,
>
>I have a setup that runs pretty much everything we have under "smoke" folder 
>as is.  So, was the request to skip if the config was not there.  
>
>We can put proper error message as Koushik suggested:  "config not there or 
>incorrect config".
>With that change, it will work for you and with my setup.
>
>I can put in the PR with the changes and you can comment if it works for you?
>
>best,
>Raja
>-Original Message-
>From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 4:34 PM
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: Re: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, 
>KVM
>
>I am not aware of anyone except Schuberg that uses the nicira (NSX) cloudstack 
>integration.
>
>And since Miguel wrote the test, I am comfortable doing what he suggests and 
>not run it as part of the standard tests for a release.
>
>-sebastien
>
>On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Miguel Ferreira  
>wrote:
>
>> Can't we not run the test if we do not wish to do so?
>> 
>> \ Miguel Ferreira
>>   mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 01 Oct 2015, at 12:11, Koushik Das 
>> mailto:koushik@citrix.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Can't we output a proper message (missing OR incorrect config) while 
>> skipping the test?
>> 
>> On 01-Oct-2015, at 2:56 PM, Miguel Ferreira 
>> mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Raja,
>> 
>> I don't agree with what you propose.
>> I do understand your intention is to be able to run all tests and skip the 
>> ones you don't have a config for.
>> However, I also see the other side of that coin, when someone actually wants 
>> to run the tests but makes a mistake in the config and the tests get skipped.
>> 
>> I think the test should fail if the config is not right, or otherwise be 
>> excluded if the indentation is to not run them.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> \ Miguel Ferreira
>> mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>> l
>> to:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 30 Sep 2015, at 19:40, Raja Pullela 
>> mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com><mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com>>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Miguel,
>> 
>> Can you please add some checking in the setup method for the configuration 
>> parameters and if it is not available, can you skip this test?
>> 
>> Raja
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 5:52 PM
>> To: Miguel Ferreira
>> mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>> i
>> lto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>>
>> Cc: dev
>> mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>> e
>> v...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>> Subject: RE: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - 
>> XS, KVM
>> 
>> thanks Miguel !
>> 
>> From: Miguel Ferreira [mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:01 PM
>> To: Raja Pullela
>> mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com><mailto:raja.
>> p
>> ull...@citrix.com>>
>> Cc: dev
>> mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>> e
>> v...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>> Subject: Re: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - 
>> XS, KVM
>> 
>> Hi Raja,
>> 
>> That test needs a NSX cluster. With that in place, the configuration used to 
>> run the test must define a section called NiciraNvp, and that section should 
>> have an array os hosts with that name (see line 46 of the test).
>> In a Marvin config that materializes in something like this:
>> "niciraNvp": {
>> 
>&g

RE: BVT report 10/1

[Raja Pullela]

Sebastien, Yes, I trying to debug all the KVM issues currently - but not able 
to root cause what the issue is?

Can anyone please run these tests on a KVM setup and report if it is 
working/not working for you?  

Thanks,
Raja

-Original Message-
From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 5:46 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: BVT report 10/1

Raja,

Is anyone on your side looking at those test_ssvm failures ?

On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Raja Pullela  wrote:

> Blockers - as open in ACS JIRA:
> 
> -  CloudStack-8927 /
> 
> -  CloudStack-8924 / Test case failure.  Waiting for PR-900/902 to be 
> merged.
> 
> -  CloudStack-8923 /
> 
> -  CloudStack-8915 /
> 
> -  CloudStack-8876 /
> 
> -  CloudStack-8697 / related to test case failure: 
> integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb
> 
> BVT report - 10/1 -
> Summary:  Runs same as earlier run on 09/29 - merging PRs 900/902 will help 
> get Simulator Basic and XS Basic to 100%.
> Hope Rajani or Remi can push these PRs!
> 
> 
> -  Simulator Basic - 97.6%, 1 test failed
> 
> -  Simulator Adv - 100%
> 
> -  XS Basic - 98.5%, 1 test failed
> 
> -  XS Adv - 94.5%, 4 tests failed
> 
> -  KVM Basic - 94.2%, 6 tests failed
> 
> -  KVM Adv - 92.6%, 8 tests failed
> 
> Test case failures:  No change from earlier report, waiting for couple of PRs 
> to be merged
> 
> -  Simulator Basic
> 
> o   
> integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
>  //Failure: CloudStack-8924
> 
> -  XS Basic
> 
> o   
> integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
>  //Failure: CloudStack-8924
> 
> -  KVM Basic
> o
> integration.smoke.test_vm_life_cycle.TestVMLifeCycle.test_10_attachAndDetach_iso
>   //Failure: SSH failed for VM
> ointegration.smoke.test_volumes.TestVolumes.test_02_attach_volume  
> //Failure: Root cause is TBD
> ointegration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm  //Failure: 
> Root cause is TBD
> 
> o   integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm  //Failure: 
> Root cause is TBD
> 
> -  XS Adv
> 
> o:setup  // Failure: 
> Test Setup.  Asked if Miguel can put conditional code to skip the test; 
> assuming that this is passing in his Env.
> 
> o
> integration.smoke.test_scale_vm.TestScaleVm.test_02_scale_vm_without_hypervisor_specifics
>  //Failure: CloudStack-8924
> 
> o
> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
>  //Failure: SSH failed for VM
> 
> o
> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
>   //Failure: SSH failed for VM
> 
> o
> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb 
>  //Failure: SSH failed for VM
> 
> o   integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb 
> //Failure: CloudStack-8697
> 
> -  KVM Adv
> o
> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
>  //Failure: SSH failed for VM
> o
> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
>  //Failure: SSH failed for VM
> o
> integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb 
> //Failure: SSH failed for VM
> o:setup  // Failure: 
> Test Setup.  Asked if Miguel can put conditional code to skip the test; 
> assuming that this is passing in his Env.
> o
> integration.smoke.test_snapshots.TestSnapshotRootDisk.test_01_snapshot_root_disk
>   //Failure: Failed to create snapshot due to an internal error
> o
> integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm<http://ccp-tests.xenrt.xs.citrite.net/jenkins/job/Hollywood-BVT-Multi/CLOUDSTACK_CONFIG=AdvKVM/176/testReport/junit/integration.smoke.test_ssvm/TestSSVMs/test_08_reboot_cpvm/>
>  //Failure: Root cause is TBD
> ointegration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm //Failure: 
> Root cause is TBD
> ointegration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb 
> //Failure: CloudStack-8697
> -end---

RE: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Miguel,  

point is to avoid any conditional coding to run BVTs.  the setup is simple and 
takes all the tests under "integration/smoke" as is and runs thru nosetests.  

My 2cents, "skip" state is the right way to implement for this - most of the 
test scripts are implemented like this - skip the test if  some configuration 
is missing or not available.  However, as a part of the verification process, 
You will have to look at "pass, skip, failed" test to make sure you are all 
good with the Tests whether it is BVT or something else. 

If anyone else, had any history around "skipTest" purpose, please chime in.

Best,
Raja

Sample code from couple of test scripts:
 (1) self.skipTest("Skip test as setup is either not VMWare or  having less 
than 2 clusters %s" % self.hypervisor)

(2) 
def setUp(self):
self.cleanup = []
if self.skiptest:
self.skipTest("This test is to be checked on xenserver only  Hence, skip for 
%s" % self.hypervisor)

-Original Message-
From: Miguel Ferreira [mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 5:54 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

Or maybe, another possibility, create a directory with the tests you want to 
call the BVT suite?

\ Miguel Ferreira
   mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>




On 01 Oct 2015, at 14:22, Miguel Ferreira 
mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:

Raja,

I might be missing something obvious here, please do correct me if I’m wrong: 
one other option you could consider is to improve your setup by adding the 
possibility of excluding certain test files.

Cheers,
\ Miguel Ferreira
   mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>




On 01 Oct 2015, at 14:19, Raja Pullela 
mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com>> wrote:

ok, thanks Remi.  let me think if there is any other solution or please propose 
one?
I would like to run all BVTs.  Another solution can be - since this is not a 
common (nicira) setup, can we move this test out of BVTs/smoke folder ?

-Original Message-
From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 5:37 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

Hi Raja,

Skipping tests makes them invisible, I think that is Miguels point.

Yesterday I run some tests and I almost reported all as OK only to realise it 
had skipped a test due to not having a certain setup. If it had failed, I would 
have noticed sooner.

Regards,
Remi




On 01/10/15 13:36, "Raja Pullela" 
mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com>> wrote:

Hi Miguel,

I have a setup that runs pretty much everything we have under "smoke" folder as 
is.  So, was the request to skip if the config was not there.

We can put proper error message as Koushik suggested:  "config not there or 
incorrect config".
With that change, it will work for you and with my setup.

I can put in the PR with the changes and you can comment if it works for you?

best,
Raja
-Original Message-
From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 4:34 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

I am not aware of anyone except Schuberg that uses the nicira (NSX) cloudstack 
integration.

And since Miguel wrote the test, I am comfortable doing what he suggests and 
not run it as part of the standard tests for a release.

-sebastien

On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Miguel Ferreira 
mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:

Can't we not run the test if we do not wish to do so?

\ Miguel Ferreira
 
mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com><mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>




On 01 Oct 2015, at 12:11, Koushik Das 
mailto:koushik@citrix.com><mailto:koushik@citrix.com>>
 wrote:

Can't we output a proper message (missing OR incorrect config) while skipping 
the test?

On 01-Oct-2015, at 2:56 PM, Miguel Ferreira 
mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com><mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>>
 wrote:

Hi Raja,

I don't agree with what you propose.
I do understand your intention is to be able to run all tests and skip the ones 
you don't have a config for.
However, I also see the other side of that coin, when someone actually wants to 
run the tests but makes a mistake in the config and the tests get skipped.

I think the test should fail if the config is not right, or otherwise be 
excluded if the indentation is to not run them.

Cheers,
\ Miguel Ferreira
mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com><mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>http://schubergphilis.co

Re: test_nicira_controller.py is failing on all Advzone - XS, KVM

[Raja Pullela]

Hi Miguel... guess, I don't see/understand the improvement here.  thanks for 
your contributions though! 

best,
Raja 

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 6:38 PM, Miguel Ferreira  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Raja,
> 
> point is to avoid any conditional coding to run BVTs.  the setup is simple 
> and takes all the tests under "integration/smoke" as is and runs thru 
> nosetests.
> 
> As I said before, I do understand where you are coming from. I I’m guessing 
> that by now you also understand my point.
> As you want to avoid adding a conditional to your setup, I too want to avoid 
> doing the same to the test.
> 
> My 2cents, "skip" state is the right way to implement for this - most of the 
> test scripts are implemented like this - skip the test if some configuration 
> is missing or not available.  However, as a part of the verification process, 
> You will have to look at "pass, skip, failed" test to make sure you are all 
> good with the Tests whether it is BVT or something else.
> 
> You are absolutely right, skipping tests from within the test is not 
> abnormal, as it happens in some tests already.
> However, I would argue there if we only stick to the current practices we 
> won’t improve.
> There are many things being done that can be improved upon, and this seems to 
> me like one of them.
> 
> Having nothing else to add to this thread I consider my contribution complete.
> 
> Thanks for you efforts in running much needed tests.
> 
> Cheers,
> \ Miguel Ferreira
>   mferre...@schubergphilis.com
> 
> 

BVT report 10/5

[Raja Pullela]

Changes in code base since last BVT report - 10/1
-  CLOUDSTACK-8848: ensure power state is up to date when handling 
missing VMs in powerReport - resmo 
/ 
detail
-  CLOUDSTACK-8848: added null pointer guard to new public method - 
Daan Hoogland / 
detail
Bugs -

-  
CloudStack-8927 /

-  
CloudStack-8923 /

-  
CloudStack-8915 /

-  
CloudStack-8876 /

-  
CloudStack-8697 / 
related to test case failure: 
integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb

BVT Report - 10/5/15

-  Simulator Basic - 100%

-  Simulator Adv - 100%

-  XS Basic - 98.6%, 1 failure

-  XS Adv - 95.5%, 5 failures

-  KVM Basic - 94.2%, 4 failures /another run that happened on Sunday 
night, test_07_reboot_ssvm  passed but came back up?

-  KVM Adv - 92.6%, 8 failures

Tests failed
XS Basic - 1 failure

-  integration.smoke.test_volumes.TestVolumes.test_02_attach_volume
XS Adv - 5 failures

-  :setup

-  
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat

-  
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat

-  
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb

-  integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb
KVM Basic - 4 Failures

-  
integration.smoke.test_vm_life_cycle.TestVMLifeCycle.test_10_attachAndDetach_iso

-  integration.smoke.test_volumes.TestVolumes.test_02_attach_volume

-  integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm

-  integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm
KVM Advanced - 8 Failures

-  
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat

-  
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat

-  
integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb

-  :setup

-  
integration.smoke.test_snapshots.TestSnapshotRootDisk.test_01_snapshot_root_disk

-  integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm

-  integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm

-  integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb

RE: BVT report 10/5

[Raja Pullela]

Oh cool, thanks Remi!  This was so hard to debug, doesn't give any clues about 
what's happening.  

I will check this with Kishan or if there are any KVM experts, please chime in?


-Original Message-
From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 3:13 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: BVT report 10/5

Hi,

I looked into the reboot of the SSVM and CPVM and can reproduce the failing 
tests. Created an issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8933


The failure is caused by the fact that on reboot the systemvms are not patched 
(patchviasocket script), and at boot time they wait for this to happen. When I 
run the patch command manual it works. See for details the above ticket.

This is KVM related, solving it fixes it both in Advanced and Basic zones.

Who can help figuring out why it isn’t patched as it should?

Regards,
Remi




On 05/10/15 21:08, "Raja Pullela"  wrote:

>Changes in code base since last BVT report - 10/1
>-  CLOUDSTACK-8848: ensure power state is up to date when handling 
>missing VMs in powerReport - resmo<http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/user/resmo/> 
>/ 
>detail<http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/package-rhel63-master/4393/changes#542880ae76c5e6eefbf61d42364e881495e6f3af>
>-  CLOUDSTACK-8848: added null pointer guard to new public method - 
>Daan Hoogland<http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/user/dahn/> / 
>detail<http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/package-rhel63-master/4393/changes#b128e567c4eacf4d22e6a8c0d6888c297c7fb726>
>Bugs -
>
>-  
>CloudStack-8927<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8927> /
>
>-  
>CloudStack-8923<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8923> /
>
>-  
>CloudStack-8915<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8915> /
>
>-  
>CloudStack-8876<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8876> /
>
>-  
>CloudStack-8697<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8697> / 
>related to test case failure: 
>integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb
>
>BVT Report - 10/5/15
>
>-  Simulator Basic - 100%
>
>-  Simulator Adv - 100%
>
>-  XS Basic - 98.6%, 1 failure
>
>-  XS Adv - 95.5%, 5 failures
>
>-  KVM Basic - 94.2%, 4 failures /another run that happened on Sunday 
>night, test_07_reboot_ssvm  passed but came back up?
>
>-  KVM Adv - 92.6%, 8 failures
>
>Tests failed
>XS Basic - 1 failure
>
>-  integration.smoke.test_volumes.TestVolumes.test_02_attach_volume
>XS Adv - 5 failures
>
>-  :setup
>
>-  
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
>
>-  
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
>
>-  
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb
>
>-  integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb
>KVM Basic - 4 Failures
>
>-  
>integration.smoke.test_vm_life_cycle.TestVMLifeCycle.test_10_attachAndDetach_iso
>
>-  integration.smoke.test_volumes.TestVolumes.test_02_attach_volume
>
>-  integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm
>
>-  integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm
>KVM Advanced - 8 Failures
>
>-  
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_01_create_lb_rule_src_nat
>
>-  
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_02_create_lb_rule_non_nat
>
>-  
>integration.smoke.test_loadbalance.TestLoadBalance.test_assign_and_removal_lb
>
>-  :setup
>
>-  
>integration.smoke.test_snapshots.TestSnapshotRootDisk.test_01_snapshot_root_disk
>
>-  integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_07_reboot_ssvm
>
>-  integration.smoke.test_ssvm.TestSSVMs.test_08_reboot_cpvm
>
>-  integration.smoke.test_internal_lb.TestInternalLb.test_internallb