[Gluster-Maintainers] [Proposal]: Changes to how we test and vote each patch

Amar Tumballi atumball at redhat.com
Wed May 24 08:43:32 UTC 2017


Below is mainly a proposal, and I would like to hear people's thought on

   - Over the years, we have added many test cases to our regression test
   suite, and currently the testing time stands at ~5hrs for 1 patch. But the
   current way of '*.t' based regression can't be called as a 'complete' test
   for the filesystem.

   - Correct me if I am wrong, but even when we have to make a release,
   other than the same set of tests, we don't have much to validate the build.
      - Pranith / Aravinda, I heard there was some effort on these lines,
      and you guys prepared a list during 3.9 cycle, share them if relevant.

Now considering above points and taking the proposal of 'Good Build' from
[1],  I am thinking of making below changes to how we look at testing and

*'What to test on nightly build':*

   - Build verification
   - Run all the regression as it runs now.
      - Run CentOS regression
      - Run NetBSD regression
      - Run coverity
   - Run gcov/lcov (for coverage)
   - Run more tests with currently optional options made as default (like
   brick-multiplexing etc).
   - Open up the infra to community contribution, so anyone can write test
   cases to make sure GlusterFS passes their usecases, everynight.
      - Should be possible to run a python script, ruby script, or a bash
      script, need not be in a 'prove' like setup.

*'master' branch:*

   - make the overall regression lightweight.
      - Run what netbsd tests run now in CentOS regression (ie, basic and
      features in tests).
      - Don't run netbsd builds, instead add a compilation test on centos
      32bit machine to keep reminding ourself how many warnings we get.
   - Make sure 'master' branch is well tested in 'Nightly'.
   - Let the approach of maintainers and over all project is to promote new
   changes, instead of being very sceptical about new patches, ideas.
   - Provide option to run the whole nightly build suit with a given
   patchset to maintainers, so when in doubt, they can ask for the build to
   complete before merging. Mostly applies to new feature or some changes
   which change the way things behave fundamentally.

*'release-x.y' branch:*

   - During the release-plan come out with target number of 'coverity'
   issues, and line coverage % to meet. Also consider number of 'glusto-tests'
   to pass.
   - Agree to branch out early (at least 45days, compared to current
   30days), so we can iron-out the issues caused by the making the 'master'
   branch process lean.

   - Change the voting logic, add more tests now (Example: fall back to
   current regression suit).
   - On the first build, run agreed performance tests and compare the
   numbers with previous versions.
   - Run NetBSD regression now.
      - Btw, noticed the latest NetBSD package is for 3.8.9 (done in Jan).
      - Work with Emmanuel  <manu at netbsd.org> for better options here.
   - Run nightly on the branch.
   - Block the release till we meet the initially agreed metrics during the
   release-plan. (like coverity/glusto-tests, line coverage etc).
      - For 3.12 release itself we can fix the coverity completely, if all
      30+ developers we have spend a day fixing these issues. Most of it is in
      general 1-2 line fixes.
      - Improving line-coverage in tests is an on-going effort IMO.
      - One of the suggestion was to 'Not' block release because of these,
      I am fine this as a best effort based approach.
      - *On the final release build:*
      - Run agreed performance tests and publish the numbers. Make sure it
      is not regressed.
      - Add install and upgrade tests to this mix (install should be
      covered when running above tests, but not upgrades)
      - Upgrade tests to test out all(?) options
      - Add, version compatibility tests
      - Add testing documented procedures into the mix, IOW, if we state
      "this is how you setup(/recover from/address) XYZ" then have a test case
      for that. This ensures documented procedures are right, or are improved
      over time.

IMHO, We all proceeding on this is critical, as I saw that (refer mail on
90days old patches)
there were more than 600 patches which were old, and many of these are good
patches which would make the project better.

Please take time to review the points here and comment if any. Planning to
raise a ticket to Infra team by June 1st. Lets move towards these changes
by June 15th if there are not any serious concerns.

[1] - http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2017-
[2] - http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2017-May/052844.html

Amar Tumballi (amarts)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20170524/530fd5cb/attachment.html>

More information about the maintainers mailing list