On Jun 17, 2015 17:18, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 06/17/2015 04:26 PM, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > MSV Bhat and I had presented in Gluster Design Summit some ideas about > > improving our testing infrastructure. > > > > Here is the link to the slides: http://redhat.slides.com/rtalur/distaf# > > > > Here are the same suggestions, > > > > 1. *A .t file for a bug* > > When a community user discovers a bug in Gluster, they contact us over > > irc or email and eventually end up filling a bug in bugzilla. > > Many times it so happens that we find a bug which we don't know the > > fix for OR not a bug in our module and also end up filling a bug in > > bugzilla. > > > > If we could rather write a .t test to reproduce the bug and add it to > > say /tests/bug/yet-to-be-fixed/ folder in gluster repo it would be > > more helpful. As part of bug-triage we could try doing the same for bugs > > filed by community users. > > > > *What do we get?* > > > > a. very easy for a new developer to pick up that bug and fix it. > > If .t passes then the bug is fixed. > > > > b. The regression on daily patch sets would skip this folder; but on a > > nightly basis we could run a test on this folder to see if any of these > > tests got fixed while we were fixing some other tests. Yay! > Attaching a reproducer in the form of .t might be difficult, specially > for the race conditions. It might pass pre and post fix as well. So it > *should not* be a must criteria to have .t file. Agreed, it is only a good to have thing. For easy fix and/or easy reproducible bugs. > > > > > > > > 2. *New gerrit/review work flow* > > > > Our gerrit setup currently has a 2 hour average for regression run. > > Due to long queue of commits the round about time is around 4-6 hours. > > > > Kaushal has proposed on how to reduce round about time more in this > > thread http://www.spinics.net/lists/gluster-devel/msg15798.html. > > > > > > 3. *Make sure tests can be done in docker and run in parallel* > > > > To reduce time for one test run from 2 hours we can look at running > > tests in parallel. I did a prototype and got test time down to 40 mins > > on a 16 GB RAM and 4 core VM. > > > > Current blocked at : > > Some of the tests fail in docker while they pass in a VM. > > Note that it is .t failing, Gluster works fine in docker. > > Need some help on this. More on this in a mail I will be sending later > > today at gluster-devel. > > > > > > *what do we get?* > > Running 4 docker containers on our Laptops itself can reduce time > > taken by test runs down to 90 mins. Running them on powerful machines, > > it is down to 40 mins as seen in the prototype. > How about NetBSD, yesterday Niels point out to me that there is no > docker service for NetBSD. There are two take aways here, 1. Reducing regression time on Jenkins 2. Reducing regression time on our laptops. For 1 we will still have NETBSD bottleneck. Haven't thought of how to avoid that. At least getting 2 is still a win. > > > > > > 4. *Test definitions for every .t* > > > > May be the time has come to upgrade our test infra to have tests with > > test definitions. Every .t file could have a corresponding .def file > > which is > > A JSON/YAML/XML config > > Defines the requirements of test > > Type of volume > > Special knowledge of brick size required? > > Which repo source folders should trigger this test > > Running time > > Test RUN level > > > > *what do we get?* > > a. Run a partial set of tests on a commit based on git log and test > > definitions and run complete regression as nightly. > > b. Order test run based on run times. This combined with fail on first > > test setting we have, we will fail as early as possible. > > c. Order tests based on functionality level, which means a mount.t basic > > test should run before a complex DHT test that makes use of FUSE mount. > > Again, this will help us to fail as early as possible in failure scenarios. > > d. With knowledge of type of volume required and number of bricks > > required, we can re-use volumes that are created for subsequent tests. > > Even the cleanup() function we have takes time. DiSTAF already has a > > function equivalent to use_existing_else_create_new. > > > > > > 5. *Testing GFAPI* > > We don't have a good test framework for gfapi as of today. > > > > However, with the recent design proposal at > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yuRLRbdccx_0V0UDAxqWbz4g983q5inuINHgM1YO040/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > and > > > > Craig Cabrey from Facebook developing a set of coreutils using > > GFAPI as mentioned here > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/gluster-devel/msg15753.html > > > > I guess we have it well covered :) > > > > > > Reviews and suggestions welcome! > > > > Thanks, > > Raghavendra Talur > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-devel mailing list > > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > -- > ~Atin _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
