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

Wed Aug 3 22:19:32 UTC 2016

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Wesley Hayutin <whayutin at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:51 PM, James Slagle <jslagle at redhat.com> 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 at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
>>
>> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rdo-list mailing list
> rdo-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
>
> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at 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.

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.
- (...)

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.

-- 
Emilien Macchi