16:59:41 #startmeeting qa 16:59:42 Meeting started Thu Aug 1 16:59:41 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is sdague. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:59:43 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:59:45 The meeting name has been set to 'qa' 16:59:54 ok, who's around for the QA meeting? 16:59:59 Here 17:00:02 here 17:00:18 here 17:00:25 hi 17:00:46 hi 17:00:50 #link - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/QATeamMeeting 17:00:58 hi 17:01:03 #topic Blueprints 17:01:16 ok, status on key blueprints 17:01:22 lets start on parallel tempest 17:01:27 mtreinish: you're up 17:01:44 so testr is making progress. I've been pushing a lot of code to try and fix the races we're seeing 17:01:50 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/speed-up-tempest 17:02:10 right now I'm stuck with on az create server one which still shows up periodically after I added locking 17:02:19 that is the most common fail right now 17:02:40 mtreinish: I just saw it again with my skip slow patch 17:02:52 mtreinish: Do you have link to one fail ? 17:02:55 I'm also working on adding tenant isolation to scenario which will fix a security group issue there 17:03:05 dkranz: yeah it happens ~30-40% now 17:03:10 without locking it was every run 17:03:22 afazekas: one sec let me pull up the link 17:03:40 mtreinish: do we do any agregate manip in scenario tests? 17:03:40 mtresnins: after this change I could add per process isolation : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/38641/ 17:04:06 afazekas: http://paste.openstack.org/show/42787/ 17:04:27 sdague: not that I remember but I'd have to double check to be sure 17:05:00 mtreinish: is that the final big bug? 17:05:07 afazekas: what do you mean by per process isolation? 17:05:11 or are there others hidden behind that one? 17:05:25 mtreinish: to create user/tenant on every worker process only 17:05:57 sdague: hopefully, looking at the build trend: https://jenkins.openstack.org/job/gate-tempest-devstack-vm-testr-full/buildTimeTrend its the only one I've been seeing 17:05:58 mtreinish: I could be extendable to use predefined list of users, when you are using tempest without admin rights 17:06:09 but there were some other ones that I saw when I first turned it on 17:06:20 List probably means a pair of users per worker process 17:06:33 afazekas: so that seems like a different optimization, I'd rather not distract from testr right now 17:06:50 but I haven't seen them in over a week 17:06:51 as we have different per class tenant isolation in there 17:07:03 i have been investigating one of those mtreinish pointed, i'm collecting info to open a bug if that comes again to happen 17:07:06 ok, we'll probably have to push parallelism 17:07:20 to shake more out, we had to do that with nova 17:07:31 sdague: the change has some modeling related improvement anyway 17:07:36 I was regularly running with 16 process to make it fall apart 17:07:56 sdague: yeah but first we've got to sort out the az failure I started working on it with jog0 last night 17:08:14 I'd like to join the forces and try the testr parallelization myself; can I ask what is the gerrit submission I should checkout? 17:08:25 afazekas: right, I get that, but right now we have a very limitted number of weeks to get testr in, so focus should be narrowly on that. We can make model improvements post H3 17:08:27 and I haven't been able to reproduce it locally 17:08:52 giulivo: It's already in. Just run the tox for full that uses testr 17:09:01 giulivo: sure, it's actually already running I can go over the details with you after the meeting in -qa 17:09:02 sdague: AFAIK keystone v3 is also a goal 17:09:31 afazekas: we have to rank goals 17:09:36 ok 17:09:37 otherwise we don't get them done 17:09:56 testr is going to be really key to the last 2 week merge rush for all the projects 17:10:03 we can do v3 after H3 17:10:21 that's why it's currently the only critical blueprint 17:10:25 sdague: What does "do v3" mean? 17:10:36 dkranz: keystone v3 api 17:10:39 spend time on landing keystone v3 api tests 17:11:02 sdague: I don't understand why we can't do that while Matt is working on testr. 17:11:08 thanks mtreinish, dkranz I see that is testenv:all 17:11:36 dkranz: there is only so much time to go around, so if people are doing that, they aren't helping make sure testr can land 17:11:42 giulivo: and testenv:testr-full, testr-full runs nonvoting on the check queue and all runs periodic 17:12:07 sdague: What people? We can't have 10 people working on getting testr in. 17:12:20 mtreinish: Can you please put readme in api folder 17:12:34 dkranz: actually, I don't think that's true 17:12:42 testr at this point is about chasing race bugs 17:12:54 that's very parallelizable 17:13:15 sdague: OK. What should we look at? 17:13:28 ravikumar_hp: there is one: https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/master/tempest/api/README.rst 17:13:40 get testr parallel up, push it hard see where the flakey bits fall out 17:14:02 dkranz: yeah it's about running it locally and debugging where it fails 17:14:28 mtreinish: OK, but let's file bugs so we are not duplicating effort. 17:14:38 mtreinish: i mean for running testr 17:14:41 the jenkins job is to help with finding things in a gate like environment and it's found quite a few. I've documented some here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/debugging-testr-tempest 17:15:14 ravikumar_hp: oh I can push out an update for the main readme to do that later today 17:15:32 ravikumar_hp: but run_tests.sh -t or tox -etestr-full will run it in parallel 17:15:46 mtreinish: Thanks 17:16:18 yep, if we can hang the bugs off the blueprint, that would be good 17:16:18 dkranz: I agree, adalbas said he was going to add a tag for testr parallel so we can easily track this 17:16:31 yeah the blueprint too 17:16:40 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/speed-up-tempest 17:16:46 sure 17:17:04 dkranz: mtreinish told me over lunch you had the interesting idea of switching over to testr single thread for all the jobs now 17:17:22 sdague: could you please also linkify those urls for debugging-testr-tempest and info those commands for running it? :) 17:17:37 sdague: Yes, because I did not want to maintain nose selection for slow, heat, etc. 17:17:54 sdague: It seems like testr is solid enough and gives advantages over nose 17:17:56 dkranz: I like it 17:18:04 can you propose the patch for that? 17:18:07 It's junk parallel that is broken 17:18:17 sdague: Yes, as soon as the slow skip goes through. 17:18:30 sdague: It seems to be working so I will unmark it WIP after the meeting. 17:18:31 cool 17:18:48 psedlak: um... do you have the links? :) 17:18:57 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/debugging-testr-tempest 17:19:03 great 17:19:19 :) ok, i was thinking that only the chair can do it, so sorry :) 17:19:26 #info concerted push on getting testr parallel working before H3 17:19:27 #info run tempest with testr parallel using: run_tests.sh -t or tox -etestr-full 17:19:55 #action dkranz to propose testr non parallel for all tempest job runs, getting us off nose 17:20:03 cool 17:20:12 this is all going to be awesome when it lands 17:20:20 and drop average gate times in half 17:20:56 sdague: Excellent 17:21:12 ok, other blueprints? 17:21:26 mtreinish, the tag you mentioned before is the one we add in the bugs, right? 17:21:39 sdague: I am also going to put some focus on getting heat in. 17:21:54 sdague: I can report on mine 17:22:01 mlavalle: go for it 17:22:05 adalbas: yeah but I forgot that we can just link it to the speed-up-tempest blueprint 17:22:10 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/fix-gate-tempest-devstack-vm-quantum-full 17:22:10 #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/fix-gate-tempest-devstack-vm-quantum-full 17:22:27 sdague: this blueprint involves a list of several items 17:22:38 mtreinish, yes, it makes sense 17:22:40 sdague: each item requires the following: fix something in a tempest test case, fix something in nova and potentially fix something in Neutron / Neutron client 17:22:56 sdague: right now I am working on the quotas item. You and I have been talking over Gerrit about the Tempest piece. Last Sunday I pushed the corresponding patchsets for review in nova. You gave a -1 in one of them (not complaining 17:23:16 sdague: after quotas, I will start with the floating ips items and so on…. I will knock them down one by one 17:23:18 mlavalle: ok, what's the review again? maybe I should look again 17:23:22 mlavalle: cool 17:23:27 thanks much for this 17:23:59 sdague: so we can expedite his 17:24:20 each time I send patches to nova or Neutron, I'll let you know, so you can help me 17:24:26 sdague: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/35724/ 17:24:36 mlavalle: sounds great 17:24:47 mlavalle: What about the neutron smoke job? 17:24:59 mlavalle: I have a concern with adding neutron tests in that the neutron jenkins jobs aren't working at all. So adding more tests we really aren't running them 17:25:03 mlavalle: It fails but I don't see any errors in the log. 17:25:17 dkranz: it fails during the devstack exercises I believe 17:25:18 dkranz: it fails really early, I did bring that up in the neutron channel 17:25:28 markmclain said he'd take a look 17:25:35 mtreinish: Yes, we need to get the neutron gate jobs working first. 17:25:36 dkranz, mtresinish: that job you are talking about is what I am fixing 17:25:46 mlavalle: OK, great. 17:25:58 mlavalle: ok great 17:26:25 mlavalle: ok but that review adds tests. I don't think we can merge that until the job is fixed 17:27:06 mtreinish: no we can merge 17:27:09 it's running 17:27:16 so it's not like we're not executing it 17:27:23 mtreinish: yeah, it's running 17:27:25 we're just not voting with it 17:27:36 sdague: correct 17:27:40 I'm ok on that front, as it's not the same bitrot issue 17:27:44 I just +Aed it 17:27:59 sdague: thanks 17:28:13 sdague: no but the jenkins jobs with neutron doesn't even get to tempest. so how can we be running the tests? 17:28:15 that's all 17:28:32 mtreinish: oh, right... well 17:28:35 I +Aed it 17:29:15 anyway, moving on 17:29:19 other blueprints? 17:29:20 mlavalle: next week, I would like to spend more time on the smoke gate instability issues , If you have any info about these issues let me know 17:29:23 It would be nice to get rid of exercises 17:29:35 dkranz: yeh, that's a post H3 thing 17:29:35 afazekas: will do 17:29:46 sdague: Of course 17:29:54 I think it just needs an audit to make sure scenario >= exercises 17:30:06 and if so, we disable exercises 17:30:18 and if not, we enhance scenario tests 17:30:39 there is now a scenario test for horizon, which is great 17:30:50 so we know that you can actually log into horizon 17:31:39 ok next topic 17:31:44 #topic Critical Reviews (sdague) 17:31:53 sdague: nowadays, we are skiping too many test because of instability issues, it ruins our coverage 17:31:56 ok, what critical reviews are out there right now that need eyes? 17:32:13 afazekas: ok, lets come back at the end 17:32:19 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39417/ 17:32:20 lets give people time for critical reviews 17:33:00 afazekas: I have issues with that actually but we should take it to the list I feel 17:33:10 because test runners can easily exclude tests 17:33:15 and testr just does it with a regex 17:33:59 mtreinish: I discovered that testr is a pain because it lets you OR regexes but not AND them 17:33:59 mtreinish: we have about 20 bugs, it will be a long regexp :) 17:34:26 afazekas: that patch is not a replacement for the skip decorator 17:34:28 afazekas: yeh, lets take that to the list 17:34:46 remember, we're using openstack-dev now with the [qa] tag 17:34:46 mtreinish: That makes testr regexp ugly. See my 'slow' tag patch for an example. 17:34:54 its so he can selectively exclude tests that we don't skip because of an environmental difference 17:35:06 mtreinish: That is a valid use case. 17:35:13 mtreinish: The question is just what the best way is 17:35:14 yeh, I'm leaning towards mtreinish on this one, because there is a way to do it already 17:35:29 but let's take it to the list and discuss there, because I think ian needs to be in it 17:35:57 and this approach probably has other implications for other efforts, like how the cells gate job is going to be approached 17:36:24 as they've got this issue that cells doesn't implement a lot of nova features 17:36:42 dkranz: well, we can always talk to lifeless about adding an exclude option to testr 17:36:47 sdague: Perhaps we should ask lifeless about allowing regexp exclusion from the command line 17:36:55 mtreinish: :) 17:36:56 #action move discussion on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39417/ to the mailing list 17:37:14 ok, other reviews that need attention? 17:38:11 going once 17:40:02 ok, moving on 17:40:17 1 sec 17:40:22 ok, not moving on 17:40:43 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/38995/ 17:41:23 'InvalidOkCode' exception can simplify the assertion in the test code 17:41:46 We just need to assert the OK codes in rest clients 17:42:08 ok, I'll take a look post meeting 17:42:13 any other reviews? 17:42:14 ok 17:42:27 ok, next topic 17:42:39 #topic Call for more Core reviewers (dkranz) 17:43:09 We need more core reviewers 17:43:10 so our core count remains at 6, and from the numbers those 6 are still the most active reviewers 17:43:33 I would really like to add more folks, but we do really need folks to be doing at least the level of work as existing cores 17:43:38 Most of the current reviewers are from Red Hat or IBM 17:43:42 and having good -1 judgement 17:44:05 so consider this an extended call for "please review more, even if you aren't a core member" :) 17:44:27 sdague: We should send this to the list 17:44:28 because the road to becoming a core member is to basically already be doing the work of one, then we add you 17:44:30 agreed 17:44:46 #action sdague to send call for more reviewers to the list 17:45:23 ok, I think that's the agenda 17:45:28 #topic Open Discussion 17:45:43 sdague: I'll start doing reviews once I feel comfortable that I am making progress with the Neutron gate job 17:46:26 mlavalle: great, thanks! 17:46:41 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-August/012855.html 17:47:01 in case folks haven't seen that, I've been heads down trying to unify our requirements testing so we don't wedge the gate 17:47:05 hopefully that lands today 17:47:14 we're actually down to a tempest requirements issue now 17:47:40 any other things from folks? 17:48:32 nothing from me 17:48:41 anyone else 17:49:00 Please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39716/ 17:49:08 That's it from me. 17:49:19 mlavalle: nothing from me 17:50:05 ok, great 17:50:10 let's call it a meeting 17:50:19 #endmeeting