Re: [rdo-list] Multiple tools for deploying and testing TripleO

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Wesley Hayutin <whayutin(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Emilien Macchi <emilien(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Wesley Hayutin <whayutin(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:51 PM, James Slagle <jslagle(a)redhat.com&gt; >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:36:57AM -0400, David Moreau Simard wrote: >> >> > Please hear me out. >> >> > TL;DR, Let's work upstream and make it awesome so that downstream can >> >> > be awesome. >> >> > >> >> > I've said this before but I'm going to re-iterate that I do not >> >> > understand why there is so much effort spent around testing TripleO >> >> > downstream. >> >> > By downstream, I mean anything that isn't in TripleO or TripleO-CI >> >> > proper. >> >> > >> >> > All this work should be done upstream to make TripleO and it's CI >> >> > super awesome and this would trickle down for free downstream. >> >> > >> >> > The RDO Trunk testing pipeline is composed of two tools, today. >> >> > The TripleO-Quickstart project [1] is a good example of an initiative >> >> > that started downstream but always had the intention of being >> >> > proposed >> >> > upstream [2] after being "incubated" and fleshed out. >> >> >> >> tripleo-quickstart was proposed to upstream TripleO as a replacement >> >> for >> >> the >> >> virtual environment setup done by instack-virt-setup. 3rd party CI >> >> would >> >> be >> >> used to gate tripleo-quickstart so that we'd be sure the virt setup was >> >> always >> >> working. That was the extent of the CI scope defined in the spec. That >> >> work is >> >> not yet completed (see work items in the spec). >> >> >> >> Now it seems it is a much more all encompassing CI/automation/testing >> >> project >> >> that is competing in scope with tripleo-ci itself. >> > >> > >> > IMHO you are correct here. There has been quite a bit of discussion >> > about >> > removing the parts >> > of oooq that are outside of the original blueprint to replace >> > instack-virt-setup w/ oooq. As usual there are many different opinions >> > here. I think there are a lot of RDO guys that would prefer a lot of >> > the >> > native oooq roles stay where they are, I think that is short sighted >> > imho. >> > I agree that anything outside of the blueprint be removed from oooq. >> > This >> > would hopefully allow the upstream to be more comfortable with oooq and >> > allow us to really start consolidating tools. >> > >> > Luckily for the users that still want to use oooq as a full end-to-end >> > solution the 3rd party roles can be used even after tearing out these >> > native >> > roles. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm all for consolidation of these types of tools *if* there is >> >> interest. >> > >> > >> > Roll call.. is there interest? +1 from me. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> However, IMO, incubating these things downstream and then trying to get >> >> them >> >> upstream or get upstream to adopt them is not ideal or a good example. >> >> The >> >> same >> >> topic came up and was pushed several times with khaleesi, and it just >> >> never >> >> happened, it was continually DOA upstream. >> > >> > >> > True, however that could be a result of the downstream perceiving >> > barriers ( >> > real or not ) in incubating projects in upstream openstack. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I think it would be fairly difficult to get tripleo-ci to wholesale >> >> adopt >> >> tripleo-quickstart at this stage. The separate irc channel from >> >> #tripleo >> >> is not >> >> conducive to consolidation on tooling and direction imo. >> > >> > >> > The irc channel is easily addressed. We do seem to generate an awful >> > amount >> > of chatter though :) >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> The scope of quickstart is actually not fully understood by myself. >> >> I've >> >> also >> >> heard from some in the upstream TripleO community as well who are >> >> confused >> >> by >> >> its direction and are facing similar difficulties using its generated >> >> bash >> >> scripts that they'd be facing if they were just using TripleO >> >> documentation >> >> instead. >> > >> > >> > The point of the generated bash scripts is to create rst documentation >> > and >> > reusable scripts for the end user. Since the documentation and the >> > generated scripts are equivalent I would expect the same errors, >> > problems >> > and issues. I see this as a good thing really. We *want* the CI to hit >> > the >> > same issues as those who are following the doc. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I do think that this sort of problem lends itself easily to one off >> >> implementations as is quite evidenced in this thread. Everyone/group >> >> wants >> >> and >> >> needs to automate something in a different way. And imo, none of these >> >> tools >> >> are building end-user or operator facing interfaces, so they're not >> >> fully >> >> focused on building something that "just works for everyone". Those >> >> interfaces >> >> should be developed in TripleO user facing tooling anyway >> >> (tripleoclient/openstackclient/etc). >> >> >> >> So, I actually think it's ok in some degree that things have been >> >> automated >> >> differently in different tools. Anecdotally, I suspect many users of >> >> TripleO in >> >> production have their own automation tools as well. And none of the >> >> implementations mentioned in this thread would likely meet their needs >> >> either. >> > >> > >> > This is true.. without a tool in the upstream that addresses ci, dev, >> > test >> > use cases across the development cycle this will continue to be the >> > case. I >> > suspect even with a perfect tool, it won't ever be perfect for everyone. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> However, if there is a desire to focus resources on consolidated >> >> tooling >> >> and >> >> someone to drive it forward, then I definitely agree that the effort >> >> needs >> >> to >> >> start upstream with a singular plan for tripleo-ci. From what I gather, >> >> that >> >> would be some sort of alignment and reuse of tripleo-quickstart, and >> >> then >> >> we >> >> could build from there. >> > >> > >> > +1 >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> That could start as a discussion and plan within that community with >> >> some >> >> agreed on concensus around that plan. There was an initial thread on >> >> openstack-dev related to this topic but it is stalled a bit. It could >> >> be >> >> continually driven to resolution via specs, the tripleo meeting, email >> >> or >> >> irc >> >> discussion until a plan is formed. >> > >> > >> > +1, I think the first step is to complete the original blueprint and >> > move >> > on from there. >> > I think there has also been interest in having an in person meeting at >> > summit. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- James Slagle >> >> -- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> rdo-list mailing list >> >> rdo-list(a)redhat.com >> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe(a)redhat.com >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rdo-list mailing list >> > rdo-list(a)redhat.com >> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list >> > >> > To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe(a)redhat.com >> >> I like how the discussion goes though I have some personal (and >> probably shared) feeling that I would like to share here, more or less >> related. >> >> As a TripleO core developer, I have some frustration to see that a lot >> of people are involved in making TripleO Quickstart better, while we >> have a few people actually working on tripleo-ci tool and try to >> maintain upstream CI stable. >> As a reminder, tripleo-ci tool is currently the ONLY ONE thing that >> actually gates TripleO, even if we don't like the tool. It is right >> now, testing TripleO upstream, everything that is not tested in there >> will probably break one day downstream CIs. >> Yes we have this tooling discussion here and that's awesome, but words >> are words. I would like to see some real engagement to help TripleO CI >> to converge into something better and not only everyone working on >> their side. > > > You have a valid point and reason to be frustrated. > Is the point here that everyone downstream should use tripleo.sh or that > everyone should be focused on ci and testing at the tripleo level? Not everyone should use tripleo.sh. My point is that we should move forward with a common tool, and stop enlarging the gap between tools. We have created (and are still doing) a technical dept where we have multiple tools with a ton of overlap, the more we wait, more difficult it will be to clean this up.

>> >> >> Some examples: >> - TripleO Quickstart (downstream) CI has coverage for undercloud & >> overcloud upgrades while TripleO CI freshly has a undercloud upgrade >> job and used to have a overcloud (minor) upgrade job (disabled now, >> for some reasons related to our capacity to run jobs and also some >> blockers into code itself). >> - TripleO CI has some TripleO Heat templates that could also be re-use >> by TripleO Quickstart (I'm working on moving them from tripleo-ci to >> THT, WIP here: https://review.openstack.org/350775). >> - TripleO CI deploys Ceph Jewel repository, TripleO Quickstart doesn't. >> - (...) > > > As others have mentioned, there are at least 5-10 tools in development that > are used to deploy tripleo in some CI fashion. Calling out > tripleo-quickstart alone is not quite right imho. There are a number of > tripleo devs that burn cycles on their own ci tools and maybe that is fine > thing to do. I called quickstart because that's the one I see everyday but my frustration is about all our tools in general. I'm actually a OOOQ user and I like this tool, really. But as you can see, I'm also working on tripleo-ci right now because I want TripleO CI better and I haven't seen until now some interest to converge. James started something cool by trying to deploy an undercloud using OOOQ from tripleo-ci. That's a start ! We need things like this, prototyping convergence, and see what we can do.

> TripleO-Quickstart is meant to replace instack-virt-setup which it does > quite well. The only group that was actually running instack-virt-setup > was the RDO CI team, upstream had taken it out of the ci system. I think > it's not unfair to say gaps have been left for other teams to fill. Gotcha. It was just some examples. >> >> >> We have been having this discussion for a while now but we're still >> not making much progress here, I feel like we're in statu quo. >> James mentioned a blueprint, I like it. We need to engage some >> upstream discussion about this major CI refactor, like we need with >> specs and then we'll decide if whether or not we need to change the >> tool, and how. > > > Well, this would take some leadership imho. We need some people that are > familiar with the upstream, midstream and downstream requirements of CI. > This was addressed at the production chain meetings initially but then > pretty much ignored. The leaders responsible at the various stages of a > build (upstream -> downstream ) failed to take this issue on. Here we are > today. > > Would it be acceptable by anyone.. IF > > tripleo-quickstart replaced instack-virt-setup [1] and walked through the > undercloud install, then handed off to tripleo.sh to deploy, upgrade, > update, scale, validate etc??? That's something we can try. > That these two tools *would* in fact be the the official CI tools of tripleo > at the upstream, RDO, and at least parts of the downstream? My opinion on this is that upstream and downstream CI should only differ on: * the packages (OSP vs RDO) * the scenarios (downstream could have customer-specific things) And that's it. Tools should remain the same IMHO. > Would that help to ease the current frustration around CI? Emilien what do > you think? I spent the last months working on composable roles and I have now more time to work on CI; $topic is definitely something where I would like to help.

-- Emilien Macchi