On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <khiremat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? This is exactly what I've proposed in the other mail thread. Do share your thoughts on that thread. > > 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 _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
