arosalesany ~charmers around?00:22
arosalesI think most folks have started their weekend00:22
marcoceppiblahdeblah: it's failing lint00:23
marcoceppiDEBUG:runner:call ['/usr/bin/make', '-s', 'lint'] (cwd: /tmp/bundletester-FGMSmT/ntp)00:24
marcoceppiDEBUG:runner:hooks/ntp_hooks.py:77:80: E501 line too long (97 > 79 characters)00:24
marcoceppiDEBUG:runner:hooks/ntp_hooks.py:118:80: E501 line too long (90 > 79 characters)00:24
marcoceppiDEBUG:runner:make: *** [lint] Error 100:24
marcoceppiDEBUG:runner:Exit Code: 200:24
blahdeblahmarcoceppi: thanks - those run *after* the amulet tests?00:24
marcoceppiblahdeblah: first00:25
marcoceppiblahdeblah: that's a better breakdown of that output00:25
blahdeblahRight - that is much better; I'll get an update to that MP done over the weekend.00:26
arosalesmarcoceppi, wow still around :-)00:28
arosalesmarcoceppi: seems I can't find the MP for http://review.juju.solutions/review/234200:29
marcoceppiarosales: it was deleted00:29
marcoceppiarosales: I'll remove from queue00:29
arosalesblahdeblah: but looks like the ntp tests pased DEBUG:runner:The ntp deploy test completed successfully.00:30
arosalesmarcoceppi: thanks00:30
* arosales will move onto the next one00:30
marcoceppiarosales: removed ;)00:30
blahdeblaharosales: Yeah - those tests aren't terribly sophisiticated00:31
arosaleswell at leasts there is tests00:31
marcoceppigood news is, the tests pass, bad news is pep8 hates you ;)00:32
blahdeblahThere's a way to tell those tests to override on a given line, isn't there?00:38
* blahdeblah asks Google00:38
arosalesmarcoceppi does charm proof check for pep8?00:41
marcoceppiarosales: it checks the charm if there's a "lint" target00:41
marcoceppithe charm author has a make lint target so we run it as part of bundle tester00:41
marcoceppiso it's basically, bundletester will do the following:00:41
marcoceppi- charm proof00:42
marcoceppi- make lint (if available)00:42
marcoceppi- make test (if available - unit tests)00:42
marcoceppi- run the charm integration tests00:42
=== med_ is now known as Guest17963
arosalesmarcoceppi: ok, thanks00:43
cory_fumarcoceppi: Have you given any thought to making charm proof wrt. layers?00:55
cory_fuCharm layers tend to fair ok, but not so much base or interface layers00:56
marcoceppicory_fu: I really want to make charm create for layers and charm add00:56
marcoceppicory_fu: like charm create layer, charm add layer:nginx. I keep messing up the damn includes syntax like a dope00:56
marcoceppicory_fu: it's not a bad idea, it's not on the road map for this iteration but could make it on there before EOY00:57
* marcoceppi packs up computer for the weekend00:58
cory_fuT'was just an errant thought00:58
arosalesmarcoceppi: 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
marcoceppiarosales: the logic for that might not be nessisarily bad01:02
marcoceppido we want to weight failures higher than passes?01:03
marcoceppiesp. given the flakiness of some of the substrates01:03
marcoceppilxc failed because of a provider problem (I restarted the tests)01:03
arosalesone school of thought was that it had to pass on local and public cloud01:03
marcoceppiarosales: yes, but a failure doesn't always mean it's a charm problem01:04
arosalesin this case the failure is due to timeout, most likey due to infrastructure01:04
arosalesbut charm CI doesn't tell us why it failed01:04
arosalesjust that it failed01:04
marcoceppiit does tell us01:04
arosaleswell doesn't surface up infrastructure or charm fail01:04
marcoceppiDEBUG:runner:Deployment timed out (900s)01:04
arosalessorry, I didn't state the correctly01:05
marcoceppiarosales: the output we link people to is kind of crap01:05
marcoceppiit's hard to find that01:05
marcoceppiarosales: I agree we should work to distinguish infrastructure failure vs testing failure01:05
marcoceppibut we don't have that atm01:05
arosalesbut to your point, is it a charm failure or a infrastructure failure01:05
arosalesbut regardless01:05
marcoceppiagent-state-info: lxc container cloning failed01:05
marcoceppiit was infrastructure01:05
arosalesthe question is when do we mark a Charm CI test as a green box, ie passing01:05
marcoceppiLXC was broken for about 20 test runs because of some weird lingering issue01:05
* arosales saw that in a couple of test runs01:06
marcoceppiarosales: 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 issues01:06
arosalesre my questions when to mark a charm CI as passing I thought it had to pass on local and a cloud01:06
marcoceppiarosales: we can reverse that logic, without problem, but it needs some discussion01:06
arosalesbut it seems currently it marks it as passing if it passes on just 1 cloud01:06
marcoceppiarosales: at the moment yes, I can see how the logic is confusing there01:07
arosalesI think passing on 1 cloud is fair for green01:07
arosalesbut just wanted to confirm my understanding01:07
marcoceppias soon as it gets one test result back we say the status, where passing > failing01:07
marcoceppiso, it'll say "some tests are passing" for any result that comes back that's testing01:07
arosalesso if it failed on 2 cloud, but passed on 1 it would be red?01:07
marcoceppinot sure01:07
marcoceppiI'm doing a terrible job of explaining this01:08
arosalessorry, I was taking you litterally on passing > failing01:08
arosalesI think I follow you though01:08
marcoceppiI'm saying pass is weighted greater than failure if there's a mix result01:08
marcoceppibecause of infra flakiness01:08
marcoceppibut we can easily reverse that logic where fail is if any one test has failed01:08
marcoceppiI've got to catch a plane so I need to EOD and pack, but we can chat more on Monday01:08
marcoceppithe new review queue will be a bit better at explaining this01:09
marcoceppiby just showing the numerical result01:09
marcoceppiX pass / Y fail01:09
marcoceppiexplicit :)01:09
arosalesI like the weight on passing01:13
arosaleslater marcoceppi, travel safely01:14
blahdeblahmarcoceppi: 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
aisraelAnyone had problems with juju under wily not starting?06:32
=== scuttle` is now known as scuttle|afk
=== scuttle|afk is now known as scuttlemonkey

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!