Difference between revisions of "Meetings/VPNaaS"
Paul Michali (talk | contribs) (→Functional Testing) |
Paul Michali (talk | contribs) (Updated for next meeting) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
= Agenda = | = Agenda = | ||
| − | Updated February | + | Updated February 17th, 2015 |
== Announcements == | == Announcements == | ||
| − | * | + | * Will need new functional job for StrongSwan. Plan to use separate root areas. |
| − | * Please push up for review (or recheck existing reviews) for functional | + | * Deferring making functional gate voting, until restructure functional tests. |
| − | * | + | * Please push up for review (or recheck existing reviews) code for functional tests. |
| + | * Review out to enable functional test coverage for VPN. | ||
* Please review open bugs and blueprints. | * Please review open bugs and blueprints. | ||
== Functional Testing == | == Functional Testing == | ||
| − | Be sure to check dsvm-neutron-vpnaas-dsvm-functional test results, when code pushed for review, as test is non-voting | + | Be sure to check dsvm-neutron-vpnaas-dsvm-functional test results, when code pushed for review, as test is non-voting. |
| − | + | Since StrongSwan has different requirements for operation (IPSEC_PACKAGE set to strongswan, and AppArmor disabled), a separate job will be needed. WIll be posting a proposal to mailing list on how to organize test area, along with questions on handling scenario testing (see below) | |
| + | |||
| + | Need functional tests for both OpenSwan and StrongSwan (have some under https://review.openstack.org/#/c/144391/). | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Scenario Testing == | ||
| + | Several complications here. First, we'll need different jobs to handle the StrongSwan versus OpenSwan cases. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Second, we have two implementations of functional tests out for review (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140072/8, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153292/5). Have discussed with both developers and neither had a preference on their particular proposal. Nikolay is able to proceed with his review (the first one), Zhang is on vacation for 10 days, and agreed that it would be fine to move forward with Nikolay's implementation. It's great that both are stepping up to help on this. We need everyone's help in making sure the solution that we end up with is the best, so please review Nikolay's code and provide feedback (also look at Zhang's and if there are elements there that should be in Nikolay's). If there are better approaches to testing this, please speak up in the review, so we avoid rework! | ||
| + | |||
| + | Third, both commits are targeted to the Tempest repo, which is in the process of being migrated to Neutron, and a tempest library is being developed. Need to discuss with QA team (above email will start discussion), on whether the scenario test should be placed into the Tempest repo and then let it migrate along with other tests, or whether this can be placed in the VPNaaS repo and use the tempest library (and when will that be available). | ||
== Bugs == | == Bugs == | ||
Revision as of 12:35, 17 February 2015
Contents
Meetings
- Weekly on Tuesdays at 1500 UTC
- IRC channel:
#openstack-meeting-4 - Chair: Paul Michali (pc_m)
Logs and Minutes
Meetings, with their notes and logs, will be found under http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/vpnaas/
Agenda
Updated February 17th, 2015
Announcements
- Will need new functional job for StrongSwan. Plan to use separate root areas.
- Deferring making functional gate voting, until restructure functional tests.
- Please push up for review (or recheck existing reviews) code for functional tests.
- Review out to enable functional test coverage for VPN.
- Please review open bugs and blueprints.
Functional Testing
Be sure to check dsvm-neutron-vpnaas-dsvm-functional test results, when code pushed for review, as test is non-voting.
Since StrongSwan has different requirements for operation (IPSEC_PACKAGE set to strongswan, and AppArmor disabled), a separate job will be needed. WIll be posting a proposal to mailing list on how to organize test area, along with questions on handling scenario testing (see below)
Need functional tests for both OpenSwan and StrongSwan (have some under https://review.openstack.org/#/c/144391/).
Scenario Testing
Several complications here. First, we'll need different jobs to handle the StrongSwan versus OpenSwan cases.
Second, we have two implementations of functional tests out for review (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/140072/8, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153292/5). Have discussed with both developers and neither had a preference on their particular proposal. Nikolay is able to proceed with his review (the first one), Zhang is on vacation for 10 days, and agreed that it would be fine to move forward with Nikolay's implementation. It's great that both are stepping up to help on this. We need everyone's help in making sure the solution that we end up with is the best, so please review Nikolay's code and provide feedback (also look at Zhang's and if there are elements there that should be in Nikolay's). If there are better approaches to testing this, please speak up in the review, so we avoid rework!
Third, both commits are targeted to the Tempest repo, which is in the process of being migrated to Neutron, and a tempest library is being developed. Need to discuss with QA team (above email will start discussion), on whether the scenario test should be placed into the Tempest repo and then let it migrate along with other tests, or whether this can be placed in the VPNaaS repo and use the tempest library (and when will that be available).
Bugs
Current bugs: VPNaaS bugs
Bring up any bugs of interest.
Open Discussion
Charter
Meeting Commands
/join #openstack-meeting-4
#startmeeting vpnaas
#topic Announcements
#undo
...
#endmeeting
