Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud
On 23 February 2018 at 14:48, Derek Higgins wrote: > > > On 1 February 2018 at 16:18, Emilien Macchi wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: >> [...] >> >>> o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the > networking stuff is different? > I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset, see existing files for examples. >>> Do you mean that we should use existing tests somewhere or create new >>> ones? >>> >> >> I mean we should use existing tempest tests from ironic, etc. Maybe just >> a baremetal scenario that spawn a baremetal server and test ssh into it, >> like we already have with other jobs. >> > Done, the current set of patches sets up a new non voting job > "tripleo-ci-centos-7-scenario011-multinode-oooq-container" which setup up > ironic in the overcloud and run the ironic tempest job > "ironic_tempest_plugin.tests.scenario.test_baremetal_basic_ > ops.BaremetalBasicOps.test_baremetal_server_ops" > > its currently passing so I'd appreciate a few eyes on it before it becomes > out of date again > there are 4 patches starting here https://review.openstack. > org/#/c/509728/19 > This is now working again so If anybody has the time I'd appreciate some reviews while its still current See scenario011 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/509728/ > > >> >> o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best > way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't > think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it? > What kind of thing do you want to run exactly? >>> The contents to this file will give you an idea, somewhere I need to >>> setup a node that ironic will control with ipmi >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/19/ci/common/vbmc_setup.yaml >>> >> >> extraconfig works for me in that case, I guess. Since we don't productize >> this code and it's for CI only, it can live here imho. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Emilien Macchi >> >> >> __ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib >> e >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Derek Higgins wrote: > > > On 1 February 2018 at 16:18, Emilien Macchi wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: >> [...] >> >>> o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the > networking stuff is different? > I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset, see existing files for examples. >>> Do you mean that we should use existing tests somewhere or create new >>> ones? >>> >> >> I mean we should use existing tempest tests from ironic, etc. Maybe just >> a baremetal scenario that spawn a baremetal server and test ssh into it, >> like we already have with other jobs. >> > Done, the current set of patches sets up a new non voting job > "tripleo-ci-centos-7-scenario011-multinode-oooq-container" which setup up > ironic in the overcloud and run the ironic tempest job > "ironic_tempest_plugin.tests.scenario.test_baremetal_basic_ > ops.BaremetalBasicOps.test_baremetal_server_ops" > > its currently passing so I'd appreciate a few eyes on it before it becomes > out of date again > there are 4 patches starting here https://review.openstack. > org/#/c/509728/19 > Nice! http://logs.openstack.org/28/509728/21/check/tripleo-ci-centos-7-scenario011-multinode-oooq-container/68cb9f4/logs/tempest.html.gz Thanks for this work! We'll make sure that lands soon. > > >> >> o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best > way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't > think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it? > What kind of thing do you want to run exactly? >>> The contents to this file will give you an idea, somewhere I need to >>> setup a node that ironic will control with ipmi >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/19/ci/common/vbmc_setup.yaml >>> >> >> extraconfig works for me in that case, I guess. Since we don't productize >> this code and it's for CI only, it can live here imho. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Emilien Macchi >> >> >> __ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib >> e >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Emilien Macchi __ 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] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud
On 1 February 2018 at 16:18, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: > [...] > >> o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the networking stuff is different? >>> >>> I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset, >>> see existing files for examples. >>> >> Do you mean that we should use existing tests somewhere or create new >> ones? >> > > I mean we should use existing tempest tests from ironic, etc. Maybe just a > baremetal scenario that spawn a baremetal server and test ssh into it, like > we already have with other jobs. > Done, the current set of patches sets up a new non voting job "tripleo-ci-centos-7-scenario011-multinode-oooq-container" which setup up ironic in the overcloud and run the ironic tempest job "ironic_tempest_plugin.tests.scenario.test_baremetal_basic_ops.BaremetalBasicOps.test_baremetal_server_ops" its currently passing so I'd appreciate a few eyes on it before it becomes out of date again there are 4 patches starting here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/509728/19 > > o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it? >>> >>> What kind of thing do you want to run exactly? >>> >> The contents to this file will give you an idea, somewhere I need to >> setup a node that ironic will control with ipmi >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/19/ci/common/vbmc_setup.yaml >> > > extraconfig works for me in that case, I guess. Since we don't productize > this code and it's for CI only, it can live here imho. > > Thanks, > -- > Emilien Macchi > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: [...] > o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the >>> networking stuff is different? >>> >> >> I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset, see >> existing files for examples. >> > Do you mean that we should use existing tests somewhere or create new > ones? > I mean we should use existing tempest tests from ironic, etc. Maybe just a baremetal scenario that spawn a baremetal server and test ssh into it, like we already have with other jobs. o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best >>> way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't >>> think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it? >>> >> >> What kind of thing do you want to run exactly? >> > The contents to this file will give you an idea, somewhere I need to setup > a node that ironic will control with ipmi > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/19/ci/common/vbmc_setup.yaml > extraconfig works for me in that case, I guess. Since we don't productize this code and it's for CI only, it can live here imho. Thanks, -- Emilien Macchi __ 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] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud
On 1 February 2018 at 15:36, Emilien Macchi wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: > >> Hi All, >>I've been working on a set of patches as a WIP to test ironic in the >> overcloud[1], the approach I've started with is to add ironic into the >> overcloud controller in scenario004. Also to run a script on the controller >> (as a NodeExtraConfigPost) that sets up a VM with vbmc that can then be >> controlled by ironic. The WIP currently replaces the current tempest tests >> with some commands to sanity test the setup. This essentially works but >> things need to be cleaned up a bit so I've a few questions >> >> o Is scenario004 the correct choice? >> > > Because we might increase the timeout risk on scenario004, I would > recommend to create a new dedicated scenario that would deploy a very basic > overcloud with just ironic + dependencies (keystone, glance, neutron, and > nova?) > Ok, I can do this > > >> >> o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the >> networking stuff is different? >> > > I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset, see > existing files for examples. > Do you mean that we should use existing tests somewhere or create new ones? > > >> >> o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best >> way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't >> think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it? >> > > What kind of thing do you want to run exactly? > The contents to this file will give you an idea, somewhere I need to setup a node that ironic will control with ipmi https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485261/19/ci/common/vbmc_setup.yaml > I'll let the CI squad replies as well but I think we need a new scenario, > that we would only run when touching ironic files in tripleo. Using > scenario004 really increase the risk of timeout and we don't want it. > Ok > > Thanks for this work! > -- > Emilien Macchi > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo]Testing ironic in the overcloud
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: > Hi All, >I've been working on a set of patches as a WIP to test ironic in the > overcloud[1], the approach I've started with is to add ironic into the > overcloud controller in scenario004. Also to run a script on the controller > (as a NodeExtraConfigPost) that sets up a VM with vbmc that can then be > controlled by ironic. The WIP currently replaces the current tempest tests > with some commands to sanity test the setup. This essentially works but > things need to be cleaned up a bit so I've a few questions > > o Is scenario004 the correct choice? > Because we might increase the timeout risk on scenario004, I would recommend to create a new dedicated scenario that would deploy a very basic overcloud with just ironic + dependencies (keystone, glance, neutron, and nova?) > > o Should I create a new tempest test for baremetal as some of the > networking stuff is different? > I think we would need to run baremetal tests for this new featureset, see existing files for examples. > > o Is running a script on the controller with NodeExtraConfigPost the best > way to set this up or should I be doing something with quickstart? I don't > think quickstart currently runs things on the controler does it? > What kind of thing do you want to run exactly? I'll let the CI squad replies as well but I think we need a new scenario, that we would only run when touching ironic files in tripleo. Using scenario004 really increase the risk of timeout and we don't want it. Thanks for this work! -- Emilien Macchi __ 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
