Re: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ?

[Remi Bergsma <RB...@schubergphilis.com>]

Hi Abhi,

Currently we run BVT tests and whatever doesn’t yet work we create a blocker for. The challenge is to make sure when we fix one thing, we do not unintentionally break something else leading to a new blocker. That’s why we do a lot of testing on the PRs fixing blockers, so we keep things working and reach a point where we can cut a release. It slows things down, but not as much as reintroducing old bugs and starting all over.

We don’t need more administration. The list of blockers in Jira is clear and we know who works on them. It doesn’t matter to me who files them nor of what type they are.

Regards,
Remi



On 01/10/15 06:23, "Abhinandan Prateek" <ab...@shapeblue.com> wrote:

> I can understand Citrix concern of some critical scenarios being missed. Citrix supports several customers with sometimes weird setups requiring that extra step in fixing and making the code that works in all those scenarios.
>
>The current code has been contributed by community, by people who just want to see cloudstack become better. The code was contributed as per process and has been there for more than 6 months, not including the time that this effort took, which is over an year.
>
>Can someone from Citrix consolidate all the VR issues and consolidate those under an umbrella ticket. As I can see the importance of those bugs is being lost in this chatter. Will request Citrix to take that extra effort in identifying the bugs, putting in enough details so that the use cases it breaks are understood in the community. Then it is just a number game — how many are squashed and how fast by the resilient community.
>
>-abhi
>
>
>> On 24-Sep-2015, at 9:06 pm, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>
>> Everything else aside, do we really think that this could be backed
>> out cleanly? The initial merge should be easy to pull out, but 6
>> months of follow on work? There's no way that's coming out cleanly.
>>
>> --David
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Raja Pullela <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> @wilder, Not sure why you would think it as a nonsense approach? sure, you realize amount of code churn and blockers we are dealing with when 4.6 is ready to go out.
>>>
>>> Agreed, the refactoring happened several months ago and we could have taken a closer look then-   the recent blockers filed have uncovered areas where in the implementation didn't exist.  I will post the bug details around this.
>>>
>>> Obviously, the refactoring changes missed multiple critical test scenarios and will take substantial time to test/stabilize.
>>>
>>> The BVTs are coming good for basic zone and Adv zone there are still a number of failures and it will take us good time to get those fixed.
>>>
>>> Besides the BVTs, regression tests are in a very bad shape.  Hope to get to these starting next week.
>>>
>>> Please see my latest bvt report, I will post in another 2 hrs, waiting for a new run to complete.
>>>
>>>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 7:00 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Remi Bergsma <RB...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you serious? You consider to revert a PR that was merged over 6 months ago? And expect it to become more stable?
>>>>
>>>> I have not followed all the latest development, but if we are talking about the VR refactoring, indeed it happened several months back. Reverting it now does not seem like a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> I am probably missed a beat here, but the latest BVT results sent by Raja showed XS tests almost at 100%, there were only some issues with KVM.
>>>>
>>>>> The problem, in MHO, is not that we find bugs that we consider blockers. The problem is we are unable to resolve them effectively because master is unstable. There currently isn’t a single PR that solves it, hence there is no way to test PRs. This is because we have many PRs open and they were all branched off of a master that doesn’t work. I simply can't test proposed PRs.
>>>>>
>>>>> This problem occurred about 3 weeks ago, because before that master worked and we could solve issues and merge PRs. I’m not saying it was bug-free, but at least we could work on stabilising it. Most likely, we accepted a “fix” that made things worse. Probably even multiple of them.
>>>>
>>>> Master seemed stable and PR where being merged towards 4.6 with success (it seemed), so indeed if we have issues now of stability, we should identify what caused it
>>>>
>>>>> To get out of this, I think we need to combine a few PRs that make it stable. I’ll have a look today with Wilder and Funs to see if what fixes we need to combine to make it work again. O
>>>>> nce we merge it and master actually works again, we can rebase any open PR with current master and work from there.
>>>>
>>>> Potentially, if you identify the commit or commits that brought the instability you could revert to that point and play forward PRs that did not render master unstable.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for looking into it.
>>>>
>>>> -seb
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Remi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/09/15 14:00, "Ramanath Katru" <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My vote is for the approach no.1 - to backout completely. Most of VR functionalities are broken and are in a mess to say the least. It definitely will take some time and effort from several folks to get it to a stable state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ram Katru
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pullela@citrix.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:06 PM
>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand a concern on the VR changes was raised earlier.  My apologies to restart this thread again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, my last conversation with Jayapal, who has fixed/have been fixing lot of VR issues, about the VR issues and he is pretty concerned about the refactoring that has happened.  I have had the same concern for sometime now  (VR issues have been on the list of issues to be looked into for at least 4+ weeks) and wanted to see a good solution for this- with VR being very fundamental to the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Couple of solutions/proposals –
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1)      Back out the VR changes – Pros: VR has been stable for some time and it is working well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2)      Continue to fix/stability VR changes -   Concerns: is the unknowns, what we will find out and how long this will take to stabilize the VR functionality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please chime in if you have any thoughts or concerns around this,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Raja
>>>>
>
>Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
>IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
>CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
>CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
>CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
>CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
>CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>
>This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.