<div dir="ltr">Alright, my worry is that nodepool and zuul integrations are a bit undertested atm. Looks like you want to address this, so I'm happy with that! </div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Tristan Cacqueray <<a href="mailto:tdecacqu@redhat.com" target="_blank">tdecacqu@redhat.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 03/29/2017 04:44 PM, Matthieu Huin wrote: > well at least the nodepool playbook... And we didn't catch it because it is > only run daily with the preprod. I'd like to see the nested cloud tests > back in the gate to avoid this. Heh, the error is fixed by <a href="https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/#/c/7162/10/health-check/playbooks/sfconfig_nodepool_setup.yaml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/#/c/7162/10/health-check/playbooks/sfconfig_nodepool_setup.yaml</a> The health-check is failing because the last configuration refactor put cloud provider in os-client-config instead of nodepool.yaml directly. Would it be possible to focus some effort > on this by next sprint ? > Sure, but I would prefer we focus on nodepool-builder instead, the patch has been ready for review for a week already... Then I don't think the whole image-build/image-upload is that worthy to gate on in the CI, with the new piece in place we could inject a pre-build slave dib in nodepool database and focus testing on zuul/nodepool integration. But to do that, we need those new piece in place :) -Tristan _______________________________________________ Softwarefactory-dev mailing list <a href="mailto:Softwarefactory-dev@redhat.com">Softwarefactory-dev@redhat.com</a> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/softwarefactory-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/softwarefactory-dev</a> </blockquote></div> </div>