Sent from one plus one
On Jun 17, 2015 10:28 PM, "Raghavendra Talur" <rtalur@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
I am bit ambitious for (1 && 2) ;)
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
