[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Release Process Questions

[Brian Bouterse]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 1:25 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> > Are those Travis jobs testing combinations of web servers, AMQP
> brokers, databases, etc? If not, is testing across those combinations a
> goal?
>
> This is definitely the goal. Right now, our build matrix tests against
> different databases, different Django versions, and different python
> versions. We could look at testing against different webservers but right
> now we just use django’s built-in webserver. AMQP is going away though[0].
>
> > Let's say pulp_file is being tested. Is both it and pulpcore installed
> from source? Or is pulpcore installed from egg/wheel?
>
> Yes, we’re testing against source which also allows us to test against
> different PRs. Often, a pulpcore change will require a pulp_file change or
> vice versa and we just added some functionality recently that actually lets
> us test against PRs too.[1] pulp-smash is also running against source or
> PRs. IMO, testing against source lets us move faster than testing against
> releases. Maybe we can look at switching though once things have stabilized
> after the MVP.
>
> > Who is looking at Jenkins jobs? If only QE, why have Jenkins jobs?
>
> I don’t think we need them. We can trigger builds on an as-needed basis
> with Travis without making git commits. We’re also running builds nightly
> right now with Travis’ cron.
>

I agree we don't need the Jenkins jobs for Pulp3 and they can be deleted.
We still need to keep them for Pulp2 because Pulp2 can't run on Travis.
Moving to Travis is a big step forward for the community since Travis is
readable by the whole Internet while to read Jenkins jobs, you have to be a
Red Hat employee.


>
> > What does this mean for goals like multi-host testing?
>
> It looks like Travis supports running docker containers[2] so maybe we
> could leverage containers to test this sort of setup. There are definitely
> limitations of Travis that might require us to move to something more
> robust in the future but short-term I think/hope Travis will fit our needs.
>
> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3454
> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3435
> [2] https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/docker/
>
>
> David
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Jeremy Audet <jaudet at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Using Travis jobs instead of Jenkins jobs for testing Pulp 3 releases
>> begs several questions:
>>
>>    - Are those Travis jobs testing combinations of web servers, AMQP
>>    brokers, databases, etc? If not, is testing across those combinations a
>>    goal?
>>    - Let's say pulp_file is being tested. Is both it and pulpcore
>>    installed from source? Or is pulpcore installed from egg/wheel?
>>    - Who is looking at Jenkins jobs? If only QE, why have Jenkins jobs?
>>    (Possible answer: So that we can trigger test runs on an as-needed basis,
>>    without making new git commits.)
>>    - What does this mean for goals like multi-host testing? That is,
>>    what does this mean for the case where a single Pulp 3 application is
>>    deployed across multiple hosts? Can that be tested with Travis? Pulp Smash
>>    is architected with this in mind, and it's been a long standing goal. The
>>    biggest impediment has been the use of legacy Jenkins (1.x) and nodepool,
>>    and recent upgrades make this a more realistic testing target.
>>
>> If these questions have already been considered and answered somewhere,
>> please point me to the correct resource.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180423/7ab800d2/attachment.htm>