Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] use zuul-cloner when running rspec
Emilien Macchiwrites: > Background > == > > Current rspec tests are tested with modules mentioned in .fixtures.yaml > file of each module. > > * the file is not consistent across all modules > * it hardcodes module names & versions IMHO, this alone justify it. > * this way does not allow to use "Depend-On" feature, that would allow > to test cross-modules patches > > Proposal > > > * Like we do in beaker & integration jobs, use zuul-cloner to clone > modules in our CI jobs. > * Use r10k to prepare fixtures modules. > * Use Puppetfile hosted by openstack/puppet-openstack-integration > > In that way: > * we will have modules name + versions testing consistency across all > modules > * the same Puppetfile would be used by unit/beaker/integration testing. > * the patch that pass tests on your laptop would pass tests in upstream CI > * if you don't have zuul-cloner on your laptop, don't worry it will use > git clone. Though you won't have Depends-On feature working on your > laptop (technically not possible). > * Though your patch will support Depends-On in OpenStack Infra for unit > tests. If you submit a patch in puppet-openstacklib that drop something > wrong, you can send a patch in puppet-nova that will test it, and unit > tests will fail. +1 > > Drawbacks > = > * cloning from .fixtures.yaml takes ~ 10 seconds > * using r10k + zuul-clone takes ~50 seconds (more modules to clone). > > I think 40 seconds is something accept regarding the benefit. Especially if one is using this workflow : 1. rake spec_prep and then: - rake spec_standalone; - rake spec_standalone; - rake spec_standalone; - ... So it's a one time 40 seconds. > > Next steps > == > > * PoC in puppet-nova: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/226830/ > * Patch openstack/puppet-modulesync-config to be consistent across all > our modules. > > Bonus > = > we might need (asap) a canary job for puppet-openstack-integration > repository, that would run tests on a puppet-* module (since we're using > install_modules.sh & Puppetfile files in puppet-* modules). > Nothing has been done yet for this work. > > > Thoughts? -- Sofer Athlan-Guyot __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] use zuul-cloner when running rspec
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Emilien Macchiwrote: > Background > == > > Current rspec tests are tested with modules mentioned in .fixtures.yaml > file of each module. > > * the file is not consistent across all modules > * it hardcodes module names & versions > * this way does not allow to use "Depend-On" feature, that would allow > to test cross-modules patches > > Proposal > > > * Like we do in beaker & integration jobs, use zuul-cloner to clone > modules in our CI jobs. > * Use r10k to prepare fixtures modules. > * Use Puppetfile hosted by openstack/puppet-openstack-integration > > In that way: > * we will have modules name + versions testing consistency across all > modules > * the same Puppetfile would be used by unit/beaker/integration testing. > * the patch that pass tests on your laptop would pass tests in upstream CI > * if you don't have zuul-cloner on your laptop, don't worry it will use > git clone. Though you won't have Depends-On feature working on your > laptop (technically not possible). > * Though your patch will support Depends-On in OpenStack Infra for unit > tests. If you submit a patch in puppet-openstacklib that drop something > wrong, you can send a patch in puppet-nova that will test it, and unit > tests will fail. > > Drawbacks > = > * cloning from .fixtures.yaml takes ~ 10 seconds > * using r10k + zuul-clone takes ~50 seconds (more modules to clone). > > I think 40 seconds is something accept regarding the benefit. > As someone who consumes these modules downstream and has our own CI setup to run the rspec items, this ties it too closely to the openstack infrastructure. If we replace the .fixtures.yml with zuul-cloner, it assumes I always want the openstack version of the modules. This is not necessarily true. I like being able to replace items within fixtures.yml when doing dev work. For example If i want to test upgrading another module not related to openstack, like inifile, how does that work with the proposed solution? This is also moving away from general puppet module conventions for testing. My preference would be that this be a different task and we have both .fixtures.yml (for general use/development) and the zuul method of cloning (for CI). You have to also think about this from a consumer standpoint and this is adding an external dependency on the OpenStack infrastructure for anyone trying to run rspec or trying to consume the published versions from the forge. Would I be able to run these tests in an offline mode with this change? With the .fixures.yml it's a minor edit to switch to local versions. Is the same true for the zuul-cloner version? > > Next steps > == > > * PoC in puppet-nova: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/226830/ > * Patch openstack/puppet-modulesync-config to be consistent across all > our modules. > > Bonus > = > we might need (asap) a canary job for puppet-openstack-integration > repository, that would run tests on a puppet-* module (since we're using > install_modules.sh & Puppetfile files in puppet-* modules). > Nothing has been done yet for this work. > > > Thoughts? > -- > Emilien Macchi > > I think we need this functionality, I just don't think it's a replacement for the .fixures.yml. Thanks, -Alex __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] use zuul-cloner when running rspec
On 09/24/2015 02:19 PM, Alex Schultz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Emilien Macchiwrote: >> >> >> On 09/24/2015 10:14 AM, Alex Schultz wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: Background == Current rspec tests are tested with modules mentioned in .fixtures.yaml file of each module. * the file is not consistent across all modules * it hardcodes module names & versions * this way does not allow to use "Depend-On" feature, that would allow to test cross-modules patches Proposal * Like we do in beaker & integration jobs, use zuul-cloner to clone modules in our CI jobs. * Use r10k to prepare fixtures modules. * Use Puppetfile hosted by openstack/puppet-openstack-integration In that way: * we will have modules name + versions testing consistency across all modules * the same Puppetfile would be used by unit/beaker/integration testing. * the patch that pass tests on your laptop would pass tests in upstream CI * if you don't have zuul-cloner on your laptop, don't worry it will use git clone. Though you won't have Depends-On feature working on your laptop (technically not possible). * Though your patch will support Depends-On in OpenStack Infra for unit tests. If you submit a patch in puppet-openstacklib that drop something wrong, you can send a patch in puppet-nova that will test it, and unit tests will fail. Drawbacks = * cloning from .fixtures.yaml takes ~ 10 seconds * using r10k + zuul-clone takes ~50 seconds (more modules to clone). I think 40 seconds is something accept regarding the benefit. >>> >>> As someone who consumes these modules downstream and has our own CI >>> setup to run the rspec items, this ties it too closely to the >>> openstack infrastructure. If we replace the .fixtures.yml with >>> zuul-cloner, it assumes I always want the openstack version of the >>> modules. This is not necessarily true. I like being able to replace >>> items within fixtures.yml when doing dev work. For example If i want >>> to test upgrading another module not related to openstack, like >>> inifile, how does that work with the proposed solution? This is also >>> moving away from general puppet module conventions for testing. My >>> preference would be that this be a different task and we have both >>> .fixtures.yml (for general use/development) and the zuul method of >>> cloning (for CI). You have to also think about this from a consumer >>> standpoint and this is adding an external dependency on the OpenStack >>> infrastructure for anyone trying to run rspec or trying to consume the >>> published versions from the forge. Would I be able to run these tests >>> in an offline mode with this change? With the .fixures.yml it's a >>> minor edit to switch to local versions. Is the same true for the >>> zuul-cloner version? >> >> What you did before: >> * Edit .fixtures.yaml and put the version you like. >> >> What you would do this the current proposal: >> * Edit openstack/puppet-openstack-integration/Puppetfile and put the >> version you like. >> > > So I have to edit a file in another module to test changes in > puppet-neutron, puppet-nova, etc? With the zuul-cloner version, for > local testing what does that workflow look like? If you need to test your code with cross-project dependencies, having current .fixtures.yaml or the proposal won't change anything regarding that, you'll still have to trick the YAML file that define the modules name/versions. > >> What you're suggesting has a huge downside: >> People will still use fixtures by default and not test what is actually >> tested by our CI. >> A few people will know about the specific Rake task so a few people will >> test exactly what upstream does. That will cause frustration to the most >> of people who will see tests failing in our CI and not on their laptop. >> I'm not sure we want that. > > You're right that the specific rake task may not be ideal. But that > was one option, another option could be use fixtures first then > replace with zuul-cloner provided versions but provide me the ability > to turn of the zuul cloner part? I'm just saying as it is today, this > change adds more complexity and hard ties into the OpenStack > infrastructure with non-trival work arounds. I would love to solve the > Depends-On issue, but I don't think that should include a deviation > from generally accepted testing practices of puppet modules. I agree it's not best practice in Puppet but I don't see that as an huge blocker. Our Puppet modules are Approved by Puppetlabs and respect most of best practices AFIK. Is that fixctures thing a big deal? I would like to hear from *cough*Hunner/Cody*cough* Puppetlabs about that. Another proposal is welcome though, please go ahead. >>
Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] use zuul-cloner when running rspec
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Emilien Macchiwrote: > > > On 09/24/2015 02:19 PM, Alex Schultz wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 09/24/2015 10:14 AM, Alex Schultz wrote: On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > Background > == > > Current rspec tests are tested with modules mentioned in .fixtures.yaml > file of each module. > > * the file is not consistent across all modules > * it hardcodes module names & versions > * this way does not allow to use "Depend-On" feature, that would allow > to test cross-modules patches > > Proposal > > > * Like we do in beaker & integration jobs, use zuul-cloner to clone > modules in our CI jobs. > * Use r10k to prepare fixtures modules. > * Use Puppetfile hosted by openstack/puppet-openstack-integration > > In that way: > * we will have modules name + versions testing consistency across all > modules > * the same Puppetfile would be used by unit/beaker/integration testing. > * the patch that pass tests on your laptop would pass tests in upstream CI > * if you don't have zuul-cloner on your laptop, don't worry it will use > git clone. Though you won't have Depends-On feature working on your > laptop (technically not possible). > * Though your patch will support Depends-On in OpenStack Infra for unit > tests. If you submit a patch in puppet-openstacklib that drop something > wrong, you can send a patch in puppet-nova that will test it, and unit > tests will fail. > > Drawbacks > = > * cloning from .fixtures.yaml takes ~ 10 seconds > * using r10k + zuul-clone takes ~50 seconds (more modules to clone). > > I think 40 seconds is something accept regarding the benefit. > As someone who consumes these modules downstream and has our own CI setup to run the rspec items, this ties it too closely to the openstack infrastructure. If we replace the .fixtures.yml with zuul-cloner, it assumes I always want the openstack version of the modules. This is not necessarily true. I like being able to replace items within fixtures.yml when doing dev work. For example If i want to test upgrading another module not related to openstack, like inifile, how does that work with the proposed solution? This is also moving away from general puppet module conventions for testing. My preference would be that this be a different task and we have both .fixtures.yml (for general use/development) and the zuul method of cloning (for CI). You have to also think about this from a consumer standpoint and this is adding an external dependency on the OpenStack infrastructure for anyone trying to run rspec or trying to consume the published versions from the forge. Would I be able to run these tests in an offline mode with this change? With the .fixures.yml it's a minor edit to switch to local versions. Is the same true for the zuul-cloner version? >>> >>> What you did before: >>> * Edit .fixtures.yaml and put the version you like. >>> >>> What you would do this the current proposal: >>> * Edit openstack/puppet-openstack-integration/Puppetfile and put the >>> version you like. >>> >> >> So I have to edit a file in another module to test changes in >> puppet-neutron, puppet-nova, etc? With the zuul-cloner version, for >> local testing what does that workflow look like? > > If you need to test your code with cross-project dependencies, having > current .fixtures.yaml or the proposal won't change anything regarding > that, you'll still have to trick the YAML file that define the modules > name/versions. > >> >>> What you're suggesting has a huge downside: >>> People will still use fixtures by default and not test what is actually >>> tested by our CI. >>> A few people will know about the specific Rake task so a few people will >>> test exactly what upstream does. That will cause frustration to the most >>> of people who will see tests failing in our CI and not on their laptop. >>> I'm not sure we want that. >> >> You're right that the specific rake task may not be ideal. But that >> was one option, another option could be use fixtures first then >> replace with zuul-cloner provided versions but provide me the ability >> to turn of the zuul cloner part? I'm just saying as it is today, this >> change adds more complexity and hard ties into the OpenStack >> infrastructure with non-trival work arounds. I would love to solve the >> Depends-On issue, but I don't think that should include a deviation >> from generally accepted testing practices of puppet modules. > > I agree it's not best practice in Puppet but I don't see that as an huge > blocker. Our Puppet modules are Approved by Puppetlabs and respect most > of best
Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] use zuul-cloner when running rspec
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Emilien Macchiwrote: > > > On 09/24/2015 10:14 AM, Alex Schultz wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: >>> Background >>> == >>> >>> Current rspec tests are tested with modules mentioned in .fixtures.yaml >>> file of each module. >>> >>> * the file is not consistent across all modules >>> * it hardcodes module names & versions >>> * this way does not allow to use "Depend-On" feature, that would allow >>> to test cross-modules patches >>> >>> Proposal >>> >>> >>> * Like we do in beaker & integration jobs, use zuul-cloner to clone >>> modules in our CI jobs. >>> * Use r10k to prepare fixtures modules. >>> * Use Puppetfile hosted by openstack/puppet-openstack-integration >>> >>> In that way: >>> * we will have modules name + versions testing consistency across all >>> modules >>> * the same Puppetfile would be used by unit/beaker/integration testing. >>> * the patch that pass tests on your laptop would pass tests in upstream CI >>> * if you don't have zuul-cloner on your laptop, don't worry it will use >>> git clone. Though you won't have Depends-On feature working on your >>> laptop (technically not possible). >>> * Though your patch will support Depends-On in OpenStack Infra for unit >>> tests. If you submit a patch in puppet-openstacklib that drop something >>> wrong, you can send a patch in puppet-nova that will test it, and unit >>> tests will fail. >>> >>> Drawbacks >>> = >>> * cloning from .fixtures.yaml takes ~ 10 seconds >>> * using r10k + zuul-clone takes ~50 seconds (more modules to clone). >>> >>> I think 40 seconds is something accept regarding the benefit. >>> >> >> As someone who consumes these modules downstream and has our own CI >> setup to run the rspec items, this ties it too closely to the >> openstack infrastructure. If we replace the .fixtures.yml with >> zuul-cloner, it assumes I always want the openstack version of the >> modules. This is not necessarily true. I like being able to replace >> items within fixtures.yml when doing dev work. For example If i want >> to test upgrading another module not related to openstack, like >> inifile, how does that work with the proposed solution? This is also >> moving away from general puppet module conventions for testing. My >> preference would be that this be a different task and we have both >> .fixtures.yml (for general use/development) and the zuul method of >> cloning (for CI). You have to also think about this from a consumer >> standpoint and this is adding an external dependency on the OpenStack >> infrastructure for anyone trying to run rspec or trying to consume the >> published versions from the forge. Would I be able to run these tests >> in an offline mode with this change? With the .fixures.yml it's a >> minor edit to switch to local versions. Is the same true for the >> zuul-cloner version? > > What you did before: > * Edit .fixtures.yaml and put the version you like. > > What you would do this the current proposal: > * Edit openstack/puppet-openstack-integration/Puppetfile and put the > version you like. > So I have to edit a file in another module to test changes in puppet-neutron, puppet-nova, etc? With the zuul-cloner version, for local testing what does that workflow look like? > What you're suggesting has a huge downside: > People will still use fixtures by default and not test what is actually > tested by our CI. > A few people will know about the specific Rake task so a few people will > test exactly what upstream does. That will cause frustration to the most > of people who will see tests failing in our CI and not on their laptop. > I'm not sure we want that. You're right that the specific rake task may not be ideal. But that was one option, another option could be use fixtures first then replace with zuul-cloner provided versions but provide me the ability to turn of the zuul cloner part? I'm just saying as it is today, this change adds more complexity and hard ties into the OpenStack infrastructure with non-trival work arounds. I would love to solve the Depends-On issue, but I don't think that should include a deviation from generally accepted testing practices of puppet modules. > > I think more than most of people that run tests on their laptops want to > see them passing in upstream CI. > The few people that want to trick versions & modules, will have to run > Rake, trick the Puppetfile and run Rake again. It's not a big deal and > I'm sure this few people can deal with that. > So for me the zuul-cloner task seems more of a CI specific job that solves the Depends-On issues we currently have. Much like the beaker and acceptance tests that's not something I run locally. I usually run the local rspec tests first before shipping off to CI to see how that plays out but I would manage the .fixtures.yml if necessary to test cross module dependancies. I don't expect to replicate an entire
Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] use zuul-cloner when running rspec
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015, at 12:39 PM, Alex Schultz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Emilien Macchi> wrote: > > > > > > On 09/24/2015 02:19 PM, Alex Schultz wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Emilien Macchi > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 09/24/2015 10:14 AM, Alex Schultz wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Emilien Macchi > wrote: > > Background > > == > > > > Current rspec tests are tested with modules mentioned in .fixtures.yaml > > file of each module. > > > > * the file is not consistent across all modules > > * it hardcodes module names & versions > > * this way does not allow to use "Depend-On" feature, that would allow > > to test cross-modules patches > > > > Proposal > > > > > > * Like we do in beaker & integration jobs, use zuul-cloner to clone > > modules in our CI jobs. > > * Use r10k to prepare fixtures modules. > > * Use Puppetfile hosted by openstack/puppet-openstack-integration > > > > In that way: > > * we will have modules name + versions testing consistency across all > > modules > > * the same Puppetfile would be used by unit/beaker/integration testing. > > * the patch that pass tests on your laptop would pass tests in upstream > > CI > > * if you don't have zuul-cloner on your laptop, don't worry it will use > > git clone. Though you won't have Depends-On feature working on your > > laptop (technically not possible). > > * Though your patch will support Depends-On in OpenStack Infra for unit > > tests. If you submit a patch in puppet-openstacklib that drop something > > wrong, you can send a patch in puppet-nova that will test it, and unit > > tests will fail. > > > > Drawbacks > > = > > * cloning from .fixtures.yaml takes ~ 10 seconds > > * using r10k + zuul-clone takes ~50 seconds (more modules to clone). > > > > I think 40 seconds is something accept regarding the benefit. > > > > As someone who consumes these modules downstream and has our own CI > setup to run the rspec items, this ties it too closely to the > openstack infrastructure. If we replace the .fixtures.yml with > zuul-cloner, it assumes I always want the openstack version of the > modules. This is not necessarily true. I like being able to replace > items within fixtures.yml when doing dev work. For example If i want > to test upgrading another module not related to openstack, like > inifile, how does that work with the proposed solution? This is also > moving away from general puppet module conventions for testing. My > preference would be that this be a different task and we have both > .fixtures.yml (for general use/development) and the zuul method of > cloning (for CI). You have to also think about this from a consumer > standpoint and this is adding an external dependency on the OpenStack > infrastructure for anyone trying to run rspec or trying to consume the > published versions from the forge. Would I be able to run these tests > in an offline mode with this change? With the .fixures.yml it's a > minor edit to switch to local versions. Is the same true for the > zuul-cloner version? > >>> > >>> What you did before: > >>> * Edit .fixtures.yaml and put the version you like. > >>> > >>> What you would do this the current proposal: > >>> * Edit openstack/puppet-openstack-integration/Puppetfile and put the > >>> version you like. > >>> > >> > >> So I have to edit a file in another module to test changes in > >> puppet-neutron, puppet-nova, etc? With the zuul-cloner version, for > >> local testing what does that workflow look like? > > > > If you need to test your code with cross-project dependencies, having > > current .fixtures.yaml or the proposal won't change anything regarding > > that, you'll still have to trick the YAML file that define the modules > > name/versions. > > > >> > >>> What you're suggesting has a huge downside: > >>> People will still use fixtures by default and not test what is actually > >>> tested by our CI. > >>> A few people will know about the specific Rake task so a few people will > >>> test exactly what upstream does. That will cause frustration to the most > >>> of people who will see tests failing in our CI and not on their laptop. > >>> I'm not sure we want that. > >> > >> You're right that the specific rake task may not be ideal. But that > >> was one option, another option could be use fixtures first then > >> replace with zuul-cloner provided versions but provide me the ability > >> to turn of the zuul cloner part? I'm just saying as it is today, this > >> change adds more complexity and hard ties into the OpenStack > >> infrastructure with non-trival work arounds. I would love to solve the > >> Depends-On
Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] use zuul-cloner when running rspec
On 2015-09-24 14:39:49 -0500 (-0500), Alex Schultz wrote: [...] > Being able to run tests without internet connectivity is important to > some people so I want to make sure that can continue without having to > break the process mid-cycle to try and inject a workaround. It would > better if we could have a workaround upfront. For example make a > Puppetfile location an environment variable and if not defined pull > down the puppet-openstack-integration one? I wish there was a better > dependency resolution method that just pulling everything down from > the internets. I just know that doesn't work everywhere. To build on Clark's response, THIS is basically why we use tools like zuul-cloner. In our CI we're attempting to minimize or even eliminate network use during tests, and so zuul-cloner leverages local caches and is sufficiently flexible to obtain the repositories in question from anywhere you want (which could also just be to always use your locally cached/modified copy and never hit the network at all). Pass it whatever Git repository URLs you want, including file:///some/thing.git if that's your preference. -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] use zuul-cloner when running rspec
On 09/24/2015 05:16 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-09-24 14:39:49 -0500 (-0500), Alex Schultz wrote: > [...] >> Being able to run tests without internet connectivity is important to >> some people so I want to make sure that can continue without having to >> break the process mid-cycle to try and inject a workaround. It would >> better if we could have a workaround upfront. For example make a >> Puppetfile location an environment variable and if not defined pull >> down the puppet-openstack-integration one? I wish there was a better >> dependency resolution method that just pulling everything down from >> the internets. I just know that doesn't work everywhere. > > To build on Clark's response, THIS is basically why we use tools > like zuul-cloner. In our CI we're attempting to minimize or even > eliminate network use during tests, and so zuul-cloner leverages > local caches and is sufficiently flexible to obtain the repositories > in question from anywhere you want (which could also just be to > always use your locally cached/modified copy and never hit the > network at all). Pass it whatever Git repository URLs you want, > including file:///some/thing.git if that's your preference. > So we had a discussion on #puppet-openstack channel, and Alex's main concern was people should be able to continue to be able to edit a file (it was .fixtures.yaml, it will be a Puppetfile now) to run tests against custom dependencies (modules + version can be whatever you like). It has been addressed in the last patchset: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/226830/21..22/Rakefile,cm So in your care, you'll have to: 1/ Build your Puppetfile that contains your custom deps (instead of editing the .fixtures.yaml) 2/ Export PUPPETFILE=/path/Puppetfile 3/ Run `rake rspec` like before. This solution should make happy everyone: * Default usage (on my laptop) will test the same things as Puppet OpenStack CI * Allow to use Depends-On in OpenStack CI * Allow to customize the dependencies for downstream CI by creating a Puppetfile and exporting its path. Deal? -- Emilien Macchi signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [puppet] use zuul-cloner when running rspec
On 09/24/2015 10:14 AM, Alex Schultz wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Emilien Macchiwrote: >> Background >> == >> >> Current rspec tests are tested with modules mentioned in .fixtures.yaml >> file of each module. >> >> * the file is not consistent across all modules >> * it hardcodes module names & versions >> * this way does not allow to use "Depend-On" feature, that would allow >> to test cross-modules patches >> >> Proposal >> >> >> * Like we do in beaker & integration jobs, use zuul-cloner to clone >> modules in our CI jobs. >> * Use r10k to prepare fixtures modules. >> * Use Puppetfile hosted by openstack/puppet-openstack-integration >> >> In that way: >> * we will have modules name + versions testing consistency across all >> modules >> * the same Puppetfile would be used by unit/beaker/integration testing. >> * the patch that pass tests on your laptop would pass tests in upstream CI >> * if you don't have zuul-cloner on your laptop, don't worry it will use >> git clone. Though you won't have Depends-On feature working on your >> laptop (technically not possible). >> * Though your patch will support Depends-On in OpenStack Infra for unit >> tests. If you submit a patch in puppet-openstacklib that drop something >> wrong, you can send a patch in puppet-nova that will test it, and unit >> tests will fail. >> >> Drawbacks >> = >> * cloning from .fixtures.yaml takes ~ 10 seconds >> * using r10k + zuul-clone takes ~50 seconds (more modules to clone). >> >> I think 40 seconds is something accept regarding the benefit. >> > > As someone who consumes these modules downstream and has our own CI > setup to run the rspec items, this ties it too closely to the > openstack infrastructure. If we replace the .fixtures.yml with > zuul-cloner, it assumes I always want the openstack version of the > modules. This is not necessarily true. I like being able to replace > items within fixtures.yml when doing dev work. For example If i want > to test upgrading another module not related to openstack, like > inifile, how does that work with the proposed solution? This is also > moving away from general puppet module conventions for testing. My > preference would be that this be a different task and we have both > .fixtures.yml (for general use/development) and the zuul method of > cloning (for CI). You have to also think about this from a consumer > standpoint and this is adding an external dependency on the OpenStack > infrastructure for anyone trying to run rspec or trying to consume the > published versions from the forge. Would I be able to run these tests > in an offline mode with this change? With the .fixures.yml it's a > minor edit to switch to local versions. Is the same true for the > zuul-cloner version? What you did before: * Edit .fixtures.yaml and put the version you like. What you would do this the current proposal: * Edit openstack/puppet-openstack-integration/Puppetfile and put the version you like. What you're suggesting has a huge downside: People will still use fixtures by default and not test what is actually tested by our CI. A few people will know about the specific Rake task so a few people will test exactly what upstream does. That will cause frustration to the most of people who will see tests failing in our CI and not on their laptop. I'm not sure we want that. I think more than most of people that run tests on their laptops want to see them passing in upstream CI. The few people that want to trick versions & modules, will have to run Rake, trick the Puppetfile and run Rake again. It's not a big deal and I'm sure this few people can deal with that. >> >> Next steps >> == >> >> * PoC in puppet-nova: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/226830/ >> * Patch openstack/puppet-modulesync-config to be consistent across all >> our modules. >> >> Bonus >> = >> we might need (asap) a canary job for puppet-openstack-integration >> repository, that would run tests on a puppet-* module (since we're using >> install_modules.sh & Puppetfile files in puppet-* modules). >> Nothing has been done yet for this work. >> >> >> Thoughts? >> -- >> Emilien Macchi >> >> > > I think we need this functionality, I just don't think it's a > replacement for the .fixures.yml. > > Thanks, > -Alex > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Emilien Macchi signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [puppet] use zuul-cloner when running rspec
Background == Current rspec tests are tested with modules mentioned in .fixtures.yaml file of each module. * the file is not consistent across all modules * it hardcodes module names & versions * this way does not allow to use "Depend-On" feature, that would allow to test cross-modules patches Proposal * Like we do in beaker & integration jobs, use zuul-cloner to clone modules in our CI jobs. * Use r10k to prepare fixtures modules. * Use Puppetfile hosted by openstack/puppet-openstack-integration In that way: * we will have modules name + versions testing consistency across all modules * the same Puppetfile would be used by unit/beaker/integration testing. * the patch that pass tests on your laptop would pass tests in upstream CI * if you don't have zuul-cloner on your laptop, don't worry it will use git clone. Though you won't have Depends-On feature working on your laptop (technically not possible). * Though your patch will support Depends-On in OpenStack Infra for unit tests. If you submit a patch in puppet-openstacklib that drop something wrong, you can send a patch in puppet-nova that will test it, and unit tests will fail. Drawbacks = * cloning from .fixtures.yaml takes ~ 10 seconds * using r10k + zuul-clone takes ~50 seconds (more modules to clone). I think 40 seconds is something accept regarding the benefit. Next steps == * PoC in puppet-nova: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/226830/ * Patch openstack/puppet-modulesync-config to be consistent across all our modules. Bonus = we might need (asap) a canary job for puppet-openstack-integration repository, that would run tests on a puppet-* module (since we're using install_modules.sh & Puppetfile files in puppet-* modules). Nothing has been done yet for this work. Thoughts? -- Emilien Macchi signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev