| arosales | any ~charmers around? | 00:22 |
|---|---|---|
| arosales | I think most folks have started their weekend | 00:22 |
| marcoceppi | o/ | 00:22 |
| marcoceppi | blahdeblah: it's failing lint | 00:23 |
| marcoceppi | DEBUG:runner:call ['/usr/bin/make', '-s', 'lint'] (cwd: /tmp/bundletester-FGMSmT/ntp) | 00:24 |
| marcoceppi | DEBUG:runner:hooks/ntp_hooks.py:77:80: E501 line too long (97 > 79 characters) | 00:24 |
| marcoceppi | DEBUG:runner:hooks/ntp_hooks.py:118:80: E501 line too long (90 > 79 characters) | 00:24 |
| marcoceppi | DEBUG:runner:make: *** [lint] Error 1 | 00:24 |
| marcoceppi | DEBUG:runner:Exit Code: 2 | 00:24 |
| blahdeblah | marcoceppi: thanks - those run *after* the amulet tests? | 00:24 |
| marcoceppi | blahdeblah: first | 00:25 |
| marcoceppi | http://reports.vapour.ws/charm-test-details/charm-bundle-test-parent-3531 | 00:25 |
| marcoceppi | blahdeblah: that's a better breakdown of that output | 00:25 |
| blahdeblah | Right - that is much better; I'll get an update to that MP done over the weekend. | 00:26 |
| arosales | marcoceppi, wow still around :-) | 00:28 |
| arosales | marcoceppi: seems I can't find the MP for http://review.juju.solutions/review/2342 | 00:29 |
| marcoceppi | arosales: it was deleted | 00:29 |
| marcoceppi | arosales: I'll remove from queue | 00:29 |
| arosales | blahdeblah: but looks like the ntp tests pased DEBUG:runner:The ntp deploy test completed successfully. | 00:30 |
| arosales | marcoceppi: thanks | 00:30 |
| * arosales will move onto the next one | 00:30 | |
| marcoceppi | arosales: removed ;) | 00:30 |
| blahdeblah | arosales: Yeah - those tests aren't terribly sophisiticated | 00:31 |
| arosales | well at leasts there is tests | 00:31 |
| arosales | :-) | 00:31 |
| marcoceppi | good news is, the tests pass, bad news is pep8 hates you ;) | 00:32 |
| blahdeblah | There's a way to tell those tests to override on a given line, isn't there? | 00:38 |
| * blahdeblah asks Google | 00:38 | |
| arosales | marcoceppi does charm proof check for pep8? | 00:41 |
| marcoceppi | arosales: it checks the charm if there's a "lint" target | 00:41 |
| marcoceppi | the charm author has a make lint target so we run it as part of bundle tester | 00:41 |
| marcoceppi | so it's basically, bundletester will do the following: | 00:41 |
| marcoceppi | - charm proof | 00:42 |
| marcoceppi | - make lint (if available) | 00:42 |
| marcoceppi | - make test (if available - unit tests) | 00:42 |
| marcoceppi | - run the charm integration tests | 00:42 |
| === med_ is now known as Guest17963 | ||
| arosales | marcoceppi: ok, thanks | 00:43 |
| cory_fu | marcoceppi: Have you given any thought to making charm proof wrt. layers? | 00:55 |
| cory_fu | Charm layers tend to fair ok, but not so much base or interface layers | 00:56 |
| marcoceppi | cory_fu: I really want to make charm create for layers and charm add | 00:56 |
| marcoceppi | cory_fu: like charm create layer, charm add layer:nginx. I keep messing up the damn includes syntax like a dope | 00:56 |
| cory_fu | Agreed | 00:57 |
| marcoceppi | cory_fu: it's not a bad idea, it's not on the road map for this iteration but could make it on there before EOY | 00:57 |
| * marcoceppi packs up computer for the weekend | 00:58 | |
| cory_fu | T'was just an errant thought | 00:58 |
| arosales | marcoceppi: For monday, note charm CI is marking charm CI as green even though LXC fails, (aws pass) [ref = http://review.juju.solutions/review/2350] | 01:01 |
| marcoceppi | arosales: the logic for that might not be nessisarily bad | 01:02 |
| marcoceppi | do we want to weight failures higher than passes? | 01:03 |
| marcoceppi | esp. given the flakiness of some of the substrates | 01:03 |
| marcoceppi | lxc failed because of a provider problem (I restarted the tests) | 01:03 |
| arosales | one school of thought was that it had to pass on local and public cloud | 01:03 |
| marcoceppi | arosales: yes, but a failure doesn't always mean it's a charm problem | 01:04 |
| arosales | in this case the failure is due to timeout, most likey due to infrastructure | 01:04 |
| arosales | agreed | 01:04 |
| arosales | but charm CI doesn't tell us why it failed | 01:04 |
| arosales | just that it failed | 01:04 |
| marcoceppi | it does tell us | 01:04 |
| arosales | well doesn't surface up infrastructure or charm fail | 01:04 |
| marcoceppi | DEBUG:runner:Deployment timed out (900s) | 01:04 |
| arosales | sorry, I didn't state the correctly | 01:05 |
| marcoceppi | arosales: the output we link people to is kind of crap | 01:05 |
| marcoceppi | it's hard to find that | 01:05 |
| marcoceppi | arosales: I agree we should work to distinguish infrastructure failure vs testing failure | 01:05 |
| marcoceppi | but we don't have that atm | 01:05 |
| arosales | but to your point, is it a charm failure or a infrastructure failure | 01:05 |
| arosales | but regardless | 01:05 |
| marcoceppi | agent-state-info: lxc container cloning failed | 01:05 |
| marcoceppi | it was infrastructure | 01:05 |
| arosales | the question is when do we mark a Charm CI test as a green box, ie passing | 01:05 |
| marcoceppi | LXC was broken for about 20 test runs because of some weird lingering issue | 01:05 |
| * arosales saw that in a couple of test runs | 01:06 | |
| marcoceppi | arosales: right, and the icon says "some tests have passed" it's never a definitive. It hink we favor passing over failing given how often we have substrate issues | 01:06 |
| arosales | re my questions when to mark a charm CI as passing I thought it had to pass on local and a cloud | 01:06 |
| marcoceppi | arosales: we can reverse that logic, without problem, but it needs some discussion | 01:06 |
| arosales | but it seems currently it marks it as passing if it passes on just 1 cloud | 01:06 |
| marcoceppi | arosales: at the moment yes, I can see how the logic is confusing there | 01:07 |
| arosales | I think passing on 1 cloud is fair for green | 01:07 |
| arosales | but just wanted to confirm my understanding | 01:07 |
| marcoceppi | as soon as it gets one test result back we say the status, where passing > failing | 01:07 |
| arosales | oh | 01:07 |
| marcoceppi | so, it'll say "some tests are passing" for any result that comes back that's testing | 01:07 |
| arosales | so if it failed on 2 cloud, but passed on 1 it would be red? | 01:07 |
| marcoceppi | not sure | 01:07 |
| marcoceppi | I'm doing a terrible job of explaining this | 01:08 |
| arosales | sorry, I was taking you litterally on passing > failing | 01:08 |
| arosales | I think I follow you though | 01:08 |
| marcoceppi | I'm saying pass is weighted greater than failure if there's a mix result | 01:08 |
| marcoceppi | because of infra flakiness | 01:08 |
| marcoceppi | but we can easily reverse that logic where fail is if any one test has failed | 01:08 |
| marcoceppi | I've got to catch a plane so I need to EOD and pack, but we can chat more on Monday | 01:08 |
| marcoceppi | the new review queue will be a bit better at explaining this | 01:09 |
| marcoceppi | by just showing the numerical result | 01:09 |
| marcoceppi | X pass / Y fail | 01:09 |
| marcoceppi | explicit :) | 01:09 |
| arosales | I like the weight on passing | 01:13 |
| arosales | later marcoceppi, travel safely | 01:14 |
| blahdeblah | marcoceppi: Pushed fix to that MP; does it retry testing automatically? | 01:20 |
| === StoneTable is now known as aisrael | ||
| === Tristit1a is now known as Tristitia | ||
| === CyberJacob is now known as Guest72473 | ||
| aisrael | Anyone had problems with juju under wily not starting? | 06:32 |
| === scuttle` is now known as scuttle|afk | ||
| === scuttle|afk is now known as scuttlemonkey | ||
| aatchison | i | 21:16 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!