mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com>>
Cc: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>, Bharat Kumar
mailto:bharat.ku...@accelerite.com>>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimum Viable CI Integration
Hi Remi,
Thanks for the inputs.
he.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>, Bharat Kumar
mailto:bharat.ku...@accelerite.com>>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimum Viable CI Integration
Hi Remi,
Thanks for the inputs.
I agree with you, May be i need to modify the CI report an
he 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
: [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
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.
>This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended
>solely for the us
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.
-Original
pe 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.
-Original Message-
From: Will Steven
The latest version (0.2.0) of upr is now available...
https://github.com/cloudops/upr
All the details are in the README file of the repo, but the quick overview
of the changes include:
- Added the ability to comment on a pull request (by PR number or
commit).
- Implemented both S3 and S
Unfortunately this would only give us the ability to 'red light'/'green
light' pull requests via a distributed CI environments. The reason I
limited the request to this permission is because anything they give us
will be global to the entire apache org and this permission is restrictive
enough that
Will,
Will this request grant us all of the permissions we need to manage the flow
PRs automatically? If we cannot get the access we require, could we propose to
and vote as a community for a new Github organization (e.g. cloudstack) which
is owned and controlled by our community?
Thanks,
-Joh
essage-
From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Will Stevens
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:04 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimum Viable CI Integration
I have made the request. Here is the Jira ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/
I have made the request. Here is the Jira ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11429
Here is the content of the request...
---
This request is for personal access tokens with the following permission be
added to the https://github.com/apache/cloudstack repository in order for
the
I say go for it
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> Anyone have any feedback on this? I would like to get this ticket opened
> this week.
>
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
>
> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
> w cloudo
Thx Daan. All feedback counts. Positive feedback is also good, it means
someone has actually read this and does not completely disagree with me. :)
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudO
Not really Will, Though I like the key per user idea. (positive feedback
doesn't count does it?)
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> Anyone have any feedback on this? I would like to get this ticket opened
> this week.
>
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
>
> *CloudOps* *| *Clo
Anyone have any feedback on this? I would like to get this ticket opened
this week.
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> I am
I am going to open a ticket with the infra team to request access tokens
for each of the organizations who are putting up hardware for the CI cause.
The reason I am planning to request a token for each organization
individually is because I want to make a point about our need for CI and
the need f
Ok Bharat. That sounds good.
Can you add the details like hardware requirements not satisfied, etc as you
said in earlier email.
Thanks,
Suresh
On 08/03/16 12:21 pm, "Bharat Kumar" wrote:
>Hi Suresh,
>
>We can only get which assertion failed, but for getting the actual reason i.e.
>what ha
Hi Suresh,
We can only get which assertion failed, but for getting the actual reason i.e.
what happened in cloudstack we need to check the cloudstack log. I am
uploading the logs to dropBox.
Thanks,
Bharat.
> On 08-Mar-2016, at 11:36 AM, Suresh Anaparti
> wrote:
>
> Hi Bharat,
>
> Good to
Hi Bharat,
Good to see the list of failed and skipped ones in the report. Is it possible
to add some generic comment/reason to know why these test cases are
failed/skipped?
Thanks,
Suresh
On 08/03/16 11:05 am, "Bharat Kumar" wrote:
>Hi Srinivas,
>
>The tests get skipped because the hardwa
Hi Srinivas,
The tests get skipped because the hardware requirement for those tests is not
satisfied. I will try to add more details to
the skipped tests so that people can run manually if needed.
The details of the hardware used can be added, but I am thinking of publishing
it in the wiki
rath
Hi Bharat,
Great job, report looks really cool.
Will you be able to add few more details like the setup info (number of
hosts, etc)
Report indicates few tests are skipped. is this due to setup limitations?
can the skipped tests be also listed so that some of us can run those
specific tests (say m
Hmm. It probably is the right place, but I think a straight up "NO" is more
likely if we go that route.
It's hard to know if I should just implement 3) before we even ask in order
to improve our likelihood of getting something we can work with.
I will think about this and see what I can come up w
I guess the appropriate channel would be to create a jira ticket for INFRA:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA
--
Erik
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> This is kind of what I was expecting. Do you know who I would be
> contacting? The permissions required are V
This is kind of what I was expecting. Do you know who I would be
contacting? The permissions required are VERY minimal AND they have
already given the 'TravisCI' application the same permissions as we need
for this.
How did we get the TravisCI application enabled and the permissions
accepted for
Hi Will,
This is the main problem: there’s no one except Apache Infra with access to the
Github CloudStack repo. Even committers have to push to Apache git, which is
mirrored to Github. We can’t close a PR, set a label, change a title or
whatever basic operation. You can ask them for a token. W
Nice work Bharat. I think the combination of our two tools gives us a
pretty complete solution to the problem.
I have renamed my project from notify_pr to upr, short for UpdatePR.
I have made an initial release available here: https://github.com/swill/upr
I did a complete rewrite of the tool ov
Hi guys,
I am also working on the similar reporting problem, here is what i did
link to the report https://github.com/bvbharatk/cloud-stack/pull/1
I am thinking this is good enough for now, I want to start posting the results
on each pr as shown in the above link.
please give me your comments o
Daan
Regarding the obligatory provider id. I agree, but I am still trying to
figure out the details. Creating distinct runs that have their own status
is done by setting the 'context'. I think we would need to have two pieces
to this. A provider id and an environment id.
So for example. Lets
The choice of Golang was made for a couple reasons:
- It is the easiest language to produce a standalone runnable binary that
can fit into any heterogeneous environment. This would be kicked off the
CI run (hopefully), and each CI environment will be installed and
configured differently, so I was
Will
Gret work, especially the thing you are showing in link [4], I would like
to make an enhancement request and that is a obligatory provider id. Only
if it is no biggy for you!
Several people may decide to do a XVM on ChildrensOS for instance and so we
may be aware of an obscurity that is diffe
I see where Daan is coming from :) I thought this would be 4th, not
exactly 7ths.
I'm not against golang by any means (if anything - its my next "go" to
language these days).
Things to consider:
Would notify-pr support proxy? I've been thinking on ways of
contributing test runs, there would hav
Alright, I have done some testing and here are the results.
I have improved the 'add comment' to pull request functionality to better
layout logs and such [1], but we may not use this functionality going
forward, but I will leave it in the tool regardless in case it is useful
later.
I have been a
ws: Inline...
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Remi Bergsma
wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> Posting in the comments is the easiest thing to do (and already far better
> then e-mailing IMHO), but we’ve seeing the past that these comments are
> easily overlooked and ignored. It’s best to have them integrated
Hi Will,
Posting in the comments is the easiest thing to do (and already far better then
e-mailing IMHO), but we’ve seeing the past that these comments are easily
overlooked and ignored. It’s best to have them integrated and registered as an
integration test. That we never got to work (and it w
Yes, I have most of it already built and will be releasing it later today
or over the weekend. The reason I chose Golang is because it can be cross
compiled to be run on any system and distributed as a single binary with no
dependencies. This means that no one will have to worry about building it
Will, Do you have an implementation of notify-pr? I am asking as you
specify it will be implemented in golang which seems odd. It is not amongst
the 7 or so languages already in use.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Will Stevens
wrote:
> Hey Everyone,
> As I am sure most of you are aware, I have
ccelerite.com]
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 5:08 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Minimum Viable CI Integration
Thanks for the info Will.
I also faced a similar problem. I will get back to you if i see any further
issues.
Thanks,
Bharat.
> On 04-Mar-2016, at 10:12 AM, Wi
Thanks for the info Will.
I also faced a similar problem. I will get back to you if i see any further
issues.
Thanks,
Bharat.
> On 04-Mar-2016, at 10:12 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
>
> Awesome, thanks for the update Bharat, that is great progress.
>
> If you need a hand with the posting back to th
Awesome, thanks for the update Bharat, that is great progress.
If you need a hand with the posting back to the pull requests on github,
just let me know, I have that piece working. My implementation is a cross
platform binary without any dependencies so it could be easy to integrate
if that would
Hi will,
we have a solution to post the results to the community by email. We also have
a github integration to fetch the Prs , run tests against them and post
the consolidated results by email and share the logs using dropbox.
We are facing some setup delays to get this up and running. I am sur
Last I knew Bharat did not have a solution for posting results back to the
community. I could be wrong though, I don't really know how complete a
solution Bharat has at this point.
There are two other CI implementations in various states of completeness
and I think it is important to have a common
Will,
I guess Bharat has something similar in working.
Bharat,
Can you please elaborate your approach for sharing the CI results with
community ?
Thanks,
Srinivas
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Will Stevens
wrote:
> Apparently attached files don't work when sending to the mailing list.
>
> Fi
Apparently attached files don't work when sending to the mailing list.
Find the screenshot here:
https://objects-east.cloud.ca/v1/5ef827605f884961b94881e928e7a250/swill/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-03%20at%207.53.42%20PM.png
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Will Stevens
wrote:
> Hey Everyone,
> As I
Hey Everyone,
As I am sure most of you are aware, I have been focusing a lot on ways to
get CI integrated back into the community.
Today I build a little POC to validate some ideas and get a feel for a
potential approach for getting CI integrated into the Github pull request
workflow.
There are m
45 matches
Mail list logo
