| [00:22] <arosales> any ~charmers around? | |
| [00:22] <arosales> I think most folks have started their weekend | |
| [00:22] <marcoceppi> o/ | |
| [00:23] <marcoceppi> blahdeblah: it's failing lint | |
| [00:24] <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? | |
| [00:25] <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 | |
| [00:26] <blahdeblah> Right - that is much better; I'll get an update to that MP done over the weekend. | |
| [00:28] <arosales> marcoceppi, wow still around :-) | |
| [00:29] <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 | |
| [00:30] <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 ;) | |
| [00:31] <blahdeblah> arosales: Yeah - those tests aren't terribly sophisiticated | |
| [00:31] <arosales> well at leasts there is tests | |
| [00:31] <arosales> :-) | |
| [00:32] <marcoceppi> good news is, the tests pass, bad news is pep8 hates you ;) | |
| [00:38] <blahdeblah> There's a way to tell those tests to override on a given line, isn't there? | |
| [00:38] * blahdeblah asks Google | |
| [00:41] <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: | |
| [00:42] <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 | |
| === med_ is now known as Guest17963 | |
| [00:43] <arosales> marcoceppi: ok, thanks | |
| [00:55] <cory_fu> marcoceppi: Have you given any thought to making charm proof wrt. layers? | |
| [00:56] <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 | |
| [00:57] <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 | |
| [00:58] * marcoceppi packs up computer for the weekend | |
| [00:58] <cory_fu> T'was just an errant thought | |
| [01:01] <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] | |
| [01:02] <marcoceppi> arosales: the logic for that might not be nessisarily bad | |
| [01:03] <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 | |
| [01:04] <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) | |
| [01:05] <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 | |
| [01:06] * 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 | |
| [01:07] <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 | |
| [01:08] <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 | |
| [01:09] <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 :) | |
| [01:13] <arosales> I like the weight on passing | |
| [01:14] <arosales> later marcoceppi, travel safely | |
| [01:20] <blahdeblah> marcoceppi: Pushed fix to that MP; does it retry testing automatically? | |
| === StoneTable is now known as aisrael | |
| === Tristit1a is now known as Tristitia | |
| === CyberJacob is now known as Guest72473 | |
| [06:32] <aisrael> Anyone had problems with juju under wily not starting? | |
| === scuttle` is now known as scuttle|afk | |
| === scuttle|afk is now known as scuttlemonkey | |
| [21:16] <aatchison> i | |