Hi All, Another thing to be considered is every patch automatically triggers regressions. It is very unlikely that, the very Patch Set 1 submitted would be a merge candidate. There would be some or the other review comments to be addressed. Considering that, I think it would be a good idea to trigger regression run on getting the first +1 or +2 by the reviewers. In that way, we would be saving lot unnecessary regression cycles. So on patch submission, 1. Let the smoke tests run 2. Review 3. Once +1 or +2 is got on the patch, initiate regression. Any thoughts? Thanks and Regards, Kotresh H R ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Atin Mukherjee" <atin.mukherjee83@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Raghavendra Talur" <rtalur@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Vishwanath Bhat" <vbhat@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:32:11 PM > Subject: Re: Regression tests and improvement ideas > > > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
