I just wanted to make sure that we are able to reproduce the issue regardless of the build environment. AFAIK CentOS 7.5 upgrade is a different issue/thread, but at the end we can fine tune a process in which we are in the same conditions to be able to replicate errors in any given build environment. Regards Cesar Lara -----Original Message----- From: McKenna, Jason [mailto:Jason.McKenna@windriver.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:02 PM To: Lara, Cesar <cesar.lara@intel.com>; Alonso, Juan Carlos <juan.carlos.alonso@intel.com>; Khalil, Ghada <Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com>; Martinez Monroy, Elio <elio.martinez.monroy@intel.com>; Jones, Bruce E <bruce.e.jones@intel.com>; Cabrales, Ada <ada.cabrales@intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io; Thebeau, Michel <Michel.Thebeau@windriver.com>; Young, Ken <Ken.Young@windriver.com>; Little, Scott <Scott.Little@windriver.com> Subject: RE: [ Test ] Sanity results - summary posted Hi Cesar, Would you elaborate on what differences you'd expect to see in an empty mirror populated by the download tool, compared to an existing mirror which was updated by the download tool? The mirror tools were written specifically to contain multiple versions of packages. The build environment population tools take the .lst file you have checked out, and places that version from the mirror into your local environment guaranteeing that your build env matches the .lst file. If your mirror contains versions 1.0.0, 1.2.3, and 2.0.0 of a given package, then your environment will only use the version called out in the .lst file you have checked out. This allows the same mirror to be used for multiple branches, for multiple releases, for multiple development environments, etc, and guarantees that a build can be reproduced down the road even if the build inputs disappear from the Internet at some point in the future. As long as all the artifacts named in the .lst file have been downloaded at some point in the past, the build environment produced from a fresh mirror vs a continually updated mirror will be identical. The issue we are observing with the CentOS 7.5 update is that the versions of packages called out in the .lst files for the centos75 branch of stx-tools do not match the versions of packages called out in centos75 branch of the other repos, like stx-integ. The other branches are attempting to patch a (new) version of the source code, but the .lst file is only bringing in (or downloading) and older version of the source. -Jason
-----Original Message----- From: Lara, Cesar <cesar.lara@intel.com> Sent: September 11, 2018 1:44 PM To: Alonso, Juan Carlos <juan.carlos.alonso@intel.com>; Khalil, Ghada <Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com>; Martinez Monroy, Elio <elio.martinez.monroy@intel.com>; Jones, Bruce E <bruce.e.jones@intel.com>; Cabrales, Ada <ada.cabrales@intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io; Thebeau, Michel <Michel.Thebeau@windriver.com> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [ Test ] Sanity results - summary posted
Hi all,
Just wanted to point out that, to be able to reproduce the issues from Intel's ISO, somebody will need to go and create a build environment from scratch, using external upstream repositories to generate a new mirror, just the way we are doing it in our environment. Failing to do this will result in a apples to oranges comparison.
Regards Cesar Lara
-----Original Message----- From: Alonso, Juan Carlos [mailto:juan.carlos.alonso@intel.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:54 AM To: Khalil, Ghada <Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com>; Martinez Monroy, Elio <elio.martinez.monroy@intel.com>; Jones, Bruce E <bruce.e.jones@intel.com>; Cabrales, Ada <ada.cabrales@intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io; Thebeau, Michel <Michel.Thebeau@windriver.com> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [ Test ] Sanity results - summary posted
Hi Ghada,
Yes, before shared our ISOs I followed such steps and got the same issues.
As I mention in the issue (https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1790213), I could get the ISO from Michel and testes in our infrastructure, issues not found. I guess there are differences between the way an ISO is built by Intel and Wind River since Intel got issues but Wind River does not. I think we should sync about this.
Besides, our test infrastructure uses other commands to generate VMs, add/install hosts (controllers and computes), such commands was gotten from "tic_vb" repo, such repo was given by China team, if I am not wrong such repo was based on Wind River documentation; our test framework is based on "tic_vb". Anyway both ways got the same results.
Regards. Juan Carlos Alonso
-----Original Message----- From: Khalil, Ghada [mailto:Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 8:53 AM To: Alonso, Juan Carlos <juan.carlos.alonso@intel.com>; Martinez Monroy, Elio <elio.martinez.monroy@intel.com>; Jones, Bruce E <bruce.e.jones@intel.com>; Cabrales, Ada <ada.cabrales@intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io; Thebeau, Michel <Michel.Thebeau@windriver.com> Subject: RE: [ Test ] Sanity results - summary posted
Hello Juan, I read the notes in the Launchpad.
And, just to confirm, are you following the instructions under: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StarlingX/Installation_Guide_Virtual_E nviro nment/Controller_Storage and still reproducing the two issues below?
I was not able to definitively tell from the Launchpad notes. It's important that both our teams are comparing apples to apples.
Thanks, Ghada
-----Original Message----- From: Alonso, Juan Carlos [mailto:juan.carlos.alonso@intel.com] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 1:50 PM To: Khalil, Ghada; Martinez Monroy, Elio; Jones, Bruce E; Cabrales, Ada; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io; Thebeau, Michel Subject: RE: [ Test ] Sanity results - summary posted
Hi,
Such launchpads were updated.
A VM was set to upload the ISO tx-2018-08-28-88.iso, such ISO present two issues. Michael will upload his ISO, then we will re test witch each iso in our environment.
An script is being developed to get the differences between ISOs.
Regards. Juan Carlos Alonso
-----Original Message----- From: Khalil, Ghada [mailto:Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com] Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 4:43 PM To: Khalil, Ghada <Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com>; Martinez Monroy, Elio <elio.martinez.monroy@intel.com>; Jones, Bruce E <bruce.e.jones@intel.com>; Cabrales, Ada <ada.cabrales@intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io; Thebeau, Michel <Michel.Thebeau@windriver.com> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [ Test ] Sanity results - summary posted
Hi Elio/Ada, Are there any updates from your side on these two Launchpads? https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1790213 https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1790716
Michel Thebeau (Wind River) has been trying to reproduce these two issues (following the starlingx wikis) without success for two days now. He has been adding his findings to the bugs and communicating with your team. As a result of his investigation, he will be pushing some small fixes to stx- tools shortly (some cleanup).
Please let us know if you need any further help from us.
Thanks, Ghada
-----Original Message----- From: Khalil, Ghada [mailto:Ghada.Khalil@windriver.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 5:39 PM To: Martinez Monroy, Elio; Jones, Bruce E; Cabrales, Ada; starlingx- discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [ Test ] Sanity results - summary posted
Please see inline. There are notes in all the launchpads as well.
I have tagged the last bug for the October release. The rest need more information to determine whether they gate or not: two maybe procedural and one requires more information.
-----Original Message----- From: Martinez Monroy, Elio [mailto:elio.martinez.monroy@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 2:23 PM To: Jones, Bruce E; Cabrales, Ada; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [ Test ] Sanity results - summary posted
My opinion below
-----Original Message----- From: Jones, Bruce E [mailto:bruce.e.jones@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 12:56 PM To: Cabrales, Ada <ada.cabrales@intel.com>; starlingx- discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [ Test ] Sanity results - summary posted
Should the bugs coming out of this be tagged/fixed for the October release?
Related bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1790213 < --- Must, this bug is related with 2nd controller provisioning [[GK]] Using the instructions published on the wiki, our designer was not able to reproduce this issue. What instructions are the test team using?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1790514 < --- Can wait until other issues are solved, will fail some test cases related to SSH [[GK]] Requested more information. This cannot be debugged further without this information.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1790716 < --- Must, all instances need at least one compute for multimode [[GK]] Using the instructions published on the wiki, our designer was not able to reproduce this issue. The test team points to internal instructions which we have no access to. The supported install recipes need to be on the wiki. I think it is an invalid bug
https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1790718 < --- Can wait since is related to FM , test cases will fail [[GK]] As Brent pointed out, this is dependent on the integration of stx-gui which is in progress.
-----Original Message----- From: Cabrales, Ada [mailto:ada.cabrales@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 10:50 AM To: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: [Starlingx-discuss] [ Test ] Sanity results - summary posted
Hello all,
As mentioned on the project meeting today, we're posting the summary of the sanity test runs on the Test wiki [0]. The sanity is triggered each time an ISO is generated (a daily task).
Right now we are posting the results manually, and working on a way for automating it. Logs of the run are not included, if you want to have them, you can contact Elio to get them sent to you.
[0] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StarlingX/Test#Latest_ISO_image_Sanity _S ummary
Regards Ada
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss