[Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX alarms fields displayed

[Perez Carranza, Jose]

Thanks Michel, Tao 

I will update the test scenario with your feedback 

Regards,
José

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Tao [mailto:Tao.Liu at windriver.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:27 AM
> To: Thebeau, Michel <Michel.Thebeau at windriver.com>; Perez Carranza, Jose
> <jose.perez.carranza at intel.com>; starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
> Subject: RE: [Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX alarms fields displayed
> 
> Hi Jose,
> 
> I think you should update the scenarios with the some details:
> 
> I believe the scenario that you refer is intended to test the system suppresses
> the alarms that associated with  a host when the host is locked. The alarm
> entity-instance-id field shows whether the alarm is associated with the host
> and the suppression field shows whether it allows to be suppressed by the
> system.  This is different than the suppression_status field shown in the alarm
> detail. The suppression_status is driven by the user action ( I.e. via CLi
> command fm event-suppress).
> 
> The test procedure would be:
> Prior to lock compute-0, check if there are any alarms that located on
> compute-0 ( for example entity-instance-id: host=compute-
> 0.filesystem=<mount-dir>)
> 
> fm alarm-list --uuid          => display the alarm list with uuid field
> 
> fm alarm show <uuid>    => it should the alarm detail ( include suppression
> field) for a given alarm
> 
> After compute-0 is locked, check the alarm list and ensure those alarms are not
> shown in the list.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Tao
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thebeau, Michel
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:58 AM
> To: Perez Carranza, Jose; starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io; Liu, Tao
> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX alarms fields displayed
> 
> Hi Jose,
> 
> I found text of your question in this web document:
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StarlingX/stx.2018.10_Testplan_Instructions
> 
> Test #85 is presented as the first in a series intended to test alarm suppression,
> and that this first test is intended the verify the alarm presentation without
> suppression.
> 
> I'm not sure that the test instruction is complete or that the "suppression" field
> is the right one to look at for this test case. I've CC'd Tao for her experience on
> the subject of alarm, events and event suppression.
> 
> M
> 
> 
> On 2018-10-09 12:11 p.m., Perez Carranza, Jose wrote:
> > Hi All
> >
> > I have a question about the alarms on StarlingX, in one of the scenarios that
> I'm executing says:  - "Verify that field and suppression set to True not shown
> (system alarm-list, system alarm-show  <uuid>)" but actually the "Supression |
> Ture " is displayed, is this a correct behavior and I should update the scenario,
> or a Launchpad should be created to address this?
> >
> > Regards,
> > José
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlingx-discuss mailing list
> > Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
> > http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
>