| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-06-21 | |||
| 16:29:08 | artom | But basically $topic :) | |
| 16:29:28 | gibi | personally I'm OK to bring back any test refactors to stable branches | |
| 16:30:17 | artom | IIRC last time we talked about this, elodilles was worried that anyone backporting to rocky and older would get the "refactor" debt unloaded onto them | |
| 16:30:36 | elodilles | IF there are enough reviewers then maybe it could be OK, though it's best to keep things on the safe side and backport less risky things | |
| 16:31:11 | artom | Are func test refactors really risky though? | |
| 16:31:14 | sean-k-mooney | well test code is less risky in general since it does not affect the runing code | |
| 16:31:27 | gibi | it does not risk the production code, it risk the CI stability | |
| 16:31:27 | elodilles | artom: yepp, if we backport mass amount of functional test refactors, then it makes the backport harder for older branches | |
| 16:31:36 | sean-k-mooney | and in some cases are not actully installed with the production code | |
| 16:32:11 | artom | elodilles, yep, agreed on that. So in practice, bauzas and gibi were at summit, is anyone still doing backports for < stable/train? | |
| 16:32:34 | artom | As in, Red Hat will have to care about stable/train for a long time | |
| 16:32:46 | sean-k-mooney | :( | |
| 16:32:53 | gibi | I tend to propose backports to stable/pike while I were in E/// | |
| 16:32:54 | sean-k-mooney | its true but :( | |
| 16:32:55 | artom | Yeah, sad face indeed | |
| 16:33:16 | gibi | I assume E/// still uses stable/pike | |
| 16:33:24 | gibi | but I don't think we will see much backports there | |
| 16:33:48 | elodilles | i see that there are less and less backports pushed toward old branches, though if we make it harder for developers, then it will not help the situation as well | |
| 16:33:56 | artom | gibi, elodilles, so I can buy the gate stability argument for integration tests, but when was the last time we had an issue with func tests that wasn't about versions of things like tox? | |
| 16:34:20 | sean-k-mooney | elodilles: well right now its hard to backprot to train because once you get past about victoria you are missing the helpers | |
| 16:34:25 | gibi | we have still open a bug where nova funct test leaks notifications between tests :) | |
| 16:34:26 | elodilles | gibi: unfortunately my pike patches are hanging there without reviews, so.... o:) | |
| 16:34:34 | gibi | elodilles: I know :) | |
| 16:34:56 | gibi | artom: so func test could be problematic | |
| 16:35:11 | gibi | as they run eventlets | |
| 16:35:26 | gibi | and sometimes depends on extrenal things like sysfs :) | |
| 16:35:44 | gibi | still I think we should backport func test infra | |
| 16:36:27 | sean-k-mooney | its the integrated_helpers that are most useful | |
| 16:37:05 | artom | gibi, I feel like sysfs should be poisoned in func tests... | |
| 16:37:15 | gibi | artom: I have a patch | |
| 16:37:26 | gibi | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/844627 | |
| 16:37:40 | sean-k-mooney | artom: for the most part its mocked already modulo bugs | |
| 16:37:56 | sean-k-mooney | but yes the poison is also good to do | |
| 16:38:31 | gibi | does anyone here strongly disagree to backport func test infra? | |
| 16:38:36 | elodilles | also note, i'm not completely against backporting func test refactors, but i still think it is best to keep it in a low level and we should not backport massive refactors :/ | |
| 16:39:12 | gibi | elodilles: it is a tradeoff, either you take the risk by backporting the refactor or take the risk when you backport a fix that needs to be changed due to the missing refactor | |
| 16:39:33 | sean-k-mooney | well or we drop the functest on backport | |
| 16:39:33 | gibi | artom: 3 lines! come on! :) | |
| 16:39:43 | elodilles | if a refactor breaks something then we don't have the bandwidth to keep it maintained i think. stable should be stable :( | |
| 16:39:45 | artom | The one on top is a bit bigger ^_^ | |
| 16:39:46 | gibi | I strongly against droping the func test on backport | |
| 16:39:56 | artom | elodilles, so that was the crux of my argument | |
| 16:40:09 | artom | Red Hat *will* maintain stable/train for literally years, we have no choice | |
| 16:40:28 | sean-k-mooney | well at least 2.5 more | |
| 16:40:29 | artom | But we don't want to inflict pain on anyone maintaining older than stable/train | |
| 16:40:38 | artom | So: do those folks... well, exist? :) | |
| 16:41:01 | artom | At Summit, what release did operators say they were on? | |
| 16:41:05 | sean-k-mooney | technially we still maintain queens downstream too for a while more | |
| 16:41:42 | sean-k-mooney | but i would prefer to have the backports of the func infra as that makes backporting simpelr in the long run | |
| 16:41:45 | gibi | artom: there were no specifics other than what is in the etherpad | |
| 16:42:01 | artom | So only "train or older" with no info if it's train... or older :( | |
| 16:42:43 | elodilles | should have been added 'train' + 'stein and older' :D | |
| 16:43:24 | artom | Yeah :S | |
| 16:44:34 | artom | So compared to stable/train, there are 4 patches last updated this year, compared to train's ~50 | |
| 16:44:53 | elodilles | why not https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/nova+branch:stable/stein ? | |
| 16:45:04 | artom | Because I suck at alphabet :P | |
| 16:45:09 | elodilles | o:) | |
| 16:45:36 | artom | Seems to be mostly Felix and Vlad Gusev... | |
| 16:45:50 | artom | But similar level of involvement drop-off | |
| 16:46:21 | elodilles | a bit more patch but without reviews, yes :/ | |
| 16:46:24 | gibi | so what if we say, func infra backport are OK to stable/train as there are maintainers there but not further backwards | |
| 16:46:44 | gibi | due to lack of maintainers | |
| 16:47:04 | elodilles | gibi: that is good for RH but not really helps to encourage backporting for older branches | |
| 16:47:26 | sean-k-mooney | well even train is in em now right | |
| 16:47:34 | artom | I think elodilles's point is that if we rewrite the fixes to not need func test refactors *before* train, it helps maintainers of older branches, such as they are | |
| 16:47:48 | sean-k-mooney | given the peopel we have its hard to keep maintianing older branches | |
| 16:47:57 | keerthi | can some one help on review this https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/define-max-volume-limit-at-flavor ? | |
| 16:47:58 | sean-k-mooney | train is 5 releases old currently | |
| 16:48:03 | artom | If we backport func test refactors, we're offloading that rewriting work onto whoever is still working with rocky and older | |
| 16:48:14 | gibi | keerthi: we are in a meeting right now | |
| 16:49:04 | artom | OTOH, why would it be wrong of facilitating the work of the majority? | |
| 16:49:10 | gibi | so we say no func test backport as it there is no maintainers but also we say if we dont backport func infra then we dont have maintaniers, this is contradiction now | |
| 16:49:12 | sean-k-mooney | keerthi: we can proably discuss it after the meeting or when we are done with this topic | |
| 16:49:31 | keerthi | sure Sean, I will wait for it | |
| 16:50:23 | elodilles | anyway, i have said my preference, and i'm only one of the stable maintainers o:) | |
| 16:50:52 | gibi | either we don't have stein maintainers and then I don't feel back about not helping them, or we have maintainers and the I would ask them to backport the func refactor from train to stein | |
| 16:51:01 | gibi | s/back/bad/ | |
| 16:51:45 | gibi | and I would help them by backporting the refactor up until train | |
| 16:51:56 | gibi | that would be a win-win | |
| 16:52:00 | artom | gibi, hard to argue with that | |
| 16:52:37 | gibi | elodilles: would you be -1 on a func infra backport to stable/train? | |
| 16:52:46 | gibi | (or even -2?) | |
| 16:53:01 | elodilles | 'func infra'? | |
| 16:53:12 | gibi | functional test infrastructure backport | |
| 16:53:30 | artom | As opposed to infrastructure that's really grooooovey :D | |
| 16:53:31 | gibi | like the one artom linked above | |
| 16:53:54 | elodilles | so you mean zuul jobs change? | |
| 16:54:06 | elodilles | (i've lost in the links :)) | |
| 16:54:11 | artom | No, stuff like https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/791481/1 | |
| 16:54:14 | artom | For example | |
| 16:54:38 | gibi | elodilles: changes that are not adding a bugfix but refactoring the functional test infrastrucutre | |
| 16:54:49 | gibi | like backporting helpers from newer branches | |
| 16:54:51 | artom | I mean, if https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/751364 is allowed... | |
| 16:54:59 | bauzas | sorry, it took longer than expected :( | |
| 16:55:10 | artom | And https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/751363/3 | |
| 16:55:28 | artom | Honestly, with those last 2, we've set the precedent that func test refactors are fair game | |
| 16:55:46 | sean-k-mooney | artom: wasnt the main issue with the backport you did that you skipped ussui by the way | |
| 16:56:01 | artom | sean-k-mooney, that's a different series, and I fixed that | |
| 16:56:07 | sean-k-mooney | oh ok | |
| 16:56:12 | sean-k-mooney | nevermind then | |