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

Fri Oct 14 00:19:06 UTC 2016

Resurrecting a old thread...

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Tal Kammer <tkammer at redhat.com> wrote:
> Reading this through I can't help but feel that once again we are straying
> from the original intent of the discussion.
> I also share the same feeling as Emilien and believe we should focus our
> efforts on where it matters rather than having each group focus on one part
> trying to "win" over the other.
>
> My concern since day 1 was that no one has asked what are the requirements
> of each group and how does the tool serve that requirement. Simply put, the
> requirement was "we need a CI tool" while I feel that the question of "what
> is a CI tool?" or "what/who does it need to serve?" was never raised and was
> left to self interpretation.
> The result became that each group started working according to its own
> understanding of a "CI tool" and I feel that even now, going over the e-mail
> thread, this question is left unanswered.

Wouldn't things be better if we as a collective team standardize on a "CI Tool"?

>
> I believe that in order to achieve a consensus around a tool, we should at
> least agree first on the needs.
> Some questions that come to mind: (feel free to pitch in more questions)
> 1. should the tool provide provisioning? if yes, what type? (virsh?
> openstack? foreman? etc..) --> this can be further discussed as it's quite a
> subject to cover
> 2. should the tool be Ansible based / other language?
> 3. where do we push / maintain this tool? (I believe 'upstream' is the
> answer but before it can officially accepted, we need a "midstream" place to
> hold it)
> 4. what other requirements does this tool needs to support? (does it need to
> include testing as well? what is the proper "plugin" mechanism to maintain,
> etc)
>
> Once we understand the above, we can ask:
> 1. "is oooq the right tool to use/push upstream?" (maybe one of the other
> projects like Octario, Weirdo, InfraRed, etc, has a better base / better
> suited for the job?)
> 2. "what are we looking for in such a tool?" (are we developing a tool for
> CI? for Automation? can it be shared across products/projects or dedicated
> Openstack tool? etc..)

Khaleesi, InfraRed, and OOOQ, what is next?

Within the scale and performance team we have been developing
performance CI which is integrated with oooq. Since a different group
uses InfraRed, they cannot take advantage of the work we have already
done with oooq -- and this is much larger then just running tests. We
have playbooks to monitor performance metrics of the under/overcloud
so you can trend if memory usage is growing with each
release/puddle/poodle (or whatever we call them now).

>From my view, we are telling the community to choose which "CI tool"
to go with. Instead we should converge on a single tool, and improve
on that tool - fill whatever gaps exist.

>
> I propose that all CI groups meet up and present their tool to each other.
> After that, we should have an open discussion on the pros and cons of each
> tool allowing everyone to comment on the design openly.
> Then after everyone shared their thoughts, we can start improving / create a
> proper tool from the experience of everyone.
> Whether it will be oooq based, InfraRed based or Octario based, it really
> doesn't matter, as long as there is an open discussion (ego aside) and an
> honest decision between all parties on how we can improve, we can get to
> where everyone is aiming, a truly collaborative project by all groups.
>
> Thoughts?

I agree, agenda's aside, egos left at the door. Let's come to some
conclusion on what as a community we move forward with.

>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Wesley Hayutin <whayutin at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Tal Kammer
> Associate manager, automation and infrastracture, Openstack platform.
> Red Hat Israel
> Automation group mojo: https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-1011659
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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