qa-devel May 2015

qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
20 discussions

[Fedora QA] #436: SSH access to systems in Beaker lab
by fedora-badges 20 Apr '16

20 Apr '16

#436: SSH access to systems in Beaker lab --------------------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: atodorov | Owner: tflink Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Blocker bug tracker page | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | --------------------------------------+--------------------- = bug description = Currently systems in Beaker lab can be accessed only through bastion.fp.o which is not as convenient as direct SSH into the system. There's also the question whether or not to open the systems directly to the Internet. This needs to be discussed with infra. Filing here so it doesn't get lost. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/436> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 4

Fedmsg Emitting
by Martin Krizek 03 Jun '15

03 Jun '15

Before we start sending fedmsgs we need to discuss a few things. We don't have to find solutions to all these problems, just keep them in mind when designing the solution we're going to start with: 1. How often do we send fedmsg a) per-task b) per-update c) per-build a) and b): we can list affected packages in a fedmsg. I am not sure if there are any limits when it comes to fedmsg size. Whether the infra folks would be more happy with less larger or more smaller fedmsgs (or it doesn't matter). I guess c) allows to easier filtering in FMN. 2. Who do we target: users, systems or both The issue here is with tasks that repeatedly test one update. Currently we check if there's a bodhi update comment with the same result already and if so, we don't post the comment again. To do something like that with fedmsgs we'd have to have a code running somewhere that would check against its database whether an incoming result is a duplicate or not. The question is where the code would run. Bodhi comes to mind since it already has information about updates and so is good for tasks that work with bodhi updates. However, there might be tasks that work with something else, like composes. In this case we'd probably have the code on taskotron systems. So if we target systems we'd just send all results in fedmsgs and let the systems consume them and do whatever they want to do with them (e.g. bodhi can squash all the tasks relevant to specific update and notify the maintainer of the package via fedmsg about the result). If we target users, we'd have to have some logic to limit rate of fedmsgs ourselves but that would mean hiding some of the results (although duplicates) from the world. So the question here is where to put the 'deduplication logic'. Emitting all results is the simplest solution as a starting point. Thoughts? Thanks, Martin

3 6

[Fedora QA] #468: Fedora 22 Translation (L10n) Test Day
by fedora-badges 02 Jun '15

02 Jun '15

#468: Fedora 22 Translation (L10n) Test Day --------------------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: anipeter | Owner: tflink Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 22 Component: Blocker bug tracker page | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | --------------------------------------+------------------------ Translation (L10n) Test Day for Fedora 22 proposed for March 17, being a date before the translation deadline. Thanks Ani Peter (ani) -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/468> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 6

2015-06-01 @ 14:00 UTC - Fedora QA Devel Meeting
by Tim Flink 02 Jun '15

02 Jun '15

# Fedora QA Devel Meeting # Date: 2015-06-01 # Time: 14:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net We'll be holding a QA devel meeting on Monday. It's been a while since we had a full planning meeting so this will be another one Tim Proposed agenda =============== Status Updates -------------- - Please have #info statements ready so we can get through this as quickly as possible Upcoming Items -------------- - Cloud Migrations - Phabricator Hosting Open Floor ---------- - TBD

2 2

New qadevel staging machine to poke at
by Tim Flink 01 Jun '15

01 Jun '15

I ended up spending some time on the qadevel-stg system yesterday and I think that I have the phabricator bits to the point where they're ready to be tested (self-signed cert used, usual warnings will pop up). https://phab.qadevel.stg.fedoraproject.org/ I've built new phabricator packages, loaded a snapshot of our production phabricator and this machine is capable of hosting git repositories (once you add your ssh key, write access is ssh-only), so I made snapshots of all the repos and they're currently available on qadevel.stg: https://phab.qadevel.stg.fedoraproject.org/diffusion/ I still need to get buildbot and a few other bits working before it's truely done but I do think it's almost to the point where we could migrate off our current cloud instance once final freeze is over. If you have some time, please poke at it and let me know what you think. Tim

2 1

Upcoming Changes to Cloud-Based Infrastructure (qadevel, testdays, taskotron-demo)
by Tim Flink 30 May '15

30 May '15

The new cloud infrastructure has been deployed in infra and at some point, we'll need to migrate the machines that we're using there to that new cloud. I'd like to have all this done sooner than later - definitely before F23 branches. I've listed my initial thoughts on the 3 services we have in the cloud below - thoughts, comments etc. would be appreciated. Tim taskotron-demo -------------- This will be pretty straight forward and should stay in the cloud. testdays -------- I think that josef has been putting some time into this as of late and if we're going to continue using it, I wonder if it should be moved into infra instead of to the new cloud. If not, I think that we should change the hostname to testdays.cloud.fedoraproject.org to work around the SSL issue that folks have been complaining about. qadevel ------- I'd prefer not to migrate this to the new cloud - I have a new stg host set up in infra and I think that this will be a good chance for us to migrate to that new setup. This will involve a new hostname, redirects and fixing old links but it was something that was going to happen eventually. I've not heard any feedback on whether to move our git repos from bitbucket to phabricator but I also think that's secondary to moving to a new machine.

2 1

Proposal to CANCEL - 2015-05-25 Fedora QA Devel Meeting
by Tim Flink 22 May '15

22 May '15

Many folks were focused on testing this week and with the US holiday on Monday, I won't be around to lead the meeting. Therefore, I propose that we cancel the qadevel meeting that we'd usually have on Monday. If there are objections to this and someone else wants to lead the meeting, reply here otherwise consider the meeting canceled. Tim

1 0

Proposal to CANCEL - 2015-05-18 Fedora QA Devel Meeting
by Tim Flink 15 May '15

15 May '15

With F22 final testing in full swing, I'm not sure there's much point in having a meeting so I'm proposing that we cancel the usual Monday meeting. If there are objections, reply here otherwise consider the meeting canceled. Tim

1 0

To RHEL or Not to RHEL?
by Tim Flink 14 May '15

14 May '15

This was brought up a little while ago and we decided to put off the discussion a little bit but I'd like to re-start the conversation before we get too much farther with disposable clients. My plan for how our hosts would be set up once we deploy support for disposable clients is this: - virthosts would have N buildslave processes running on them - each buildslave would launch VMs for disposable clients as needed - each virthost would have access to a shared filesystem used to store at least VM images, maybe logs and other data While virt-in-virt is possible, I'd prefer to avoid the extra complexity and performance penalty and figure that running on bare metal makes more sense. If we disable local task execution, there should be little risk of one task disrupting other stuff on that virthost that can't be easily reverted. All of our infrastructure outside of the database host are running Fedora (F21 at the moment) which is fine but I'm wondering about migrating to RHEL for everything that doesn't have to run Fedora. For observers of this discussion - I'm not in any way asserting that Fedora isn't capable of running our production services well. I'm simply acknowledging that it will likely be more expensive (in terms of human resources) to run Fedora on our production systems and I'm wondering whether it's wise to be spending that much of our rather limited resources to do it. In my mind, the big pros/cons for the two approaches are: -------------------------- Moving to RHEL -------------------------- Pros: * Less frequent updates, less downtime required for kernel updates etc. * Using the same bits that infra is already using and there should be less maintenance work on our part Cons: * Will make python and library compatibility more of an issue (if we're going to support tasks on el7 anyways, this point is kind of moot since we'll need to do it anyways) * No buildbot packages for el7 - I'm not willing to take on epel7 maintenance for buildbot 0.8.x and I'd rather not see packages for it in epel7, either. We'll be migrating to buildbot 0.9 before long and I'd prefer to avoid compat packages. * Migration and some code changes may be required * May need to take on maintenance of EPEL packages and/or deal with folks not testing updates before making version changes in EPEL (I've gotten burned by that before with blockerbugs) -------------------------- Staying With Fedora -------------------------- Pros: * Dogfooding * Production environment is closer to dev environments * Don't have to worry about as many compat packages * No EPEL * More testing of Fedora - we are QA after all Cons: * We'll probably hit problems before infra does since we'd be upgrading everything more often * More frequent migrations since Fedora releases are supported for 1 year * More frequent downtime for updates * Will need to be more diligent about keeping dev/stg on updates-testing so that we don't get any nasty surprises in production I think that infra would like to see us migrate to RHEL so that the Taskotron systems are more like everything else that supports Fedora but I don't think that they'd object to us running Fedora as long as we accept responsibility for keeping everything working and actually do it. If we do decide that we'd prefer to keep Fedora, we'll discuss it with them but I wanted to start the discussion here before bothering the infra folks with it. I suspect that our virthosts for Taskotron will be slightly different from infra's either way - we still need to figure out a shared filesystem for the images (gluster is the first thing that comes to mind but there are other options) and none of infra's virthosts have that. They do use gluster for a few things, so I suspect that it'd be less work to set that up on rhel than fedora. I'm a bit torn on this - as much as I'd like see us use Fedora, I think it's important to provide as much value to Fedora as we can and I'm not sure that our time is best spent admin-ing and upgrading systems. That being said, migrating to el7 wouldn't be trivial but once we get over the initial hurdle of packaging and deployment I think it will require less maintenance. What does everyone else think? Keep in mind that you'll be the folks helping with all of this :) Tim

4 9

watching projects in Phabricator, Herald rules simplified
by Kamil Paral 14 May '15

14 May '15

Hello everyone, in the last week I've spent a bit of time investigating the possibilities of how to watch for ticket/revision updates in Phabricator, and found out that some new features in Phab greatly simplify this. I have updated our Phab wiki page and included most common use cases: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Phabricator In a nutshell: * you can now start "watching" projects which automatically sends you all tasks (tickets) updates. No more Herald rules needed. Unfortunately, this does not apply for revisions (patches). * you can now easily subscribe to tickets without a project defined (usually bug reports). This way you can help us classify and triage them and make sure they go unnoticed (that unfortunately happened in the past). * Taskotron lovers can now easily watch for all Taskotron-related new revisions (patches) by using the repos-taskotron meta-project [1]. We will make sure that this meta-project is always linked with all taskotron-related repositories, and you don't need to update your Herald rules for every new Taskotron sub-project. * You can now easily decide between a permanent item subscription or just one-time notification by choosing either "Add emails to CC <name>" or "Send an email to <name>". I have tested it for the last week and everything seems to work properly for me. If you have some troubles, ask. Kamil [1] https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/project/profile/23/

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

qa-devel May 2015