Bug Reporting and Triaging Guide¶
All Ironic projects use Launchpad for tracking bugs.
We are constantly receiving a lot of requests, so it’s important to file a meaningful one for it to be acted upon. A good request:
specifies why a change is needed. In case of a bug - what you expected to happen.
explains how to reproduce the described condition.
Please try to provide a reproducer based on unit tests, devstack or bifrost. While we try our best to support users using other installers and distributions, it may be non-trivial without deep knowledge of them. If you’re using a commercial distribution or a product, please try contacting support first.
should be understandable without additional context. For example, if you see an exception, we will need the full traceback. Other commonly required things are:
the contents of the node in question (use
baremetal node show <uuid>)
debug logging related to the event, ideally with logs from the ramdisk
versions of ironic, ironic-python-agent, and any other coupled components.
should not be too verbose either. Unfortunately, we cannot process a few days worth of system logs to find the problems, we expect your collaboration.
is not a question or a support request. Please see So You Want to Contribute… for the ways to contact us.
provides a way to contact the reporter. Please follow the comments and expect follow-up emails, but ideally also be on IRC for questions.
An enhancement request additionally:
benefits the overall project, not just one consumer. If you have a case that is specific to your requirements, think about ways to make Ironic extensible to be able to cover it.
does not unnecessary increase the project scope. Consider if your idea can be implemented without changing Ironic or its projects, maybe it actually should?
should specify if you are willing to perform the work to enhance Ironic yourself, of if you’re submitting a request to for the project team to executed your requested enhancement.
The bug triaging process involves checking new stories to make sure they are actionable by the team. This guide is mostly targeting the project team, but we would appreciate if reporters could partly self-triage their own requests.
Determine if the request is valid and complete. Use the checklist in the Reporting Guide for that.
Is the request a bug report or an enhancement request (an RFE)? The difference is often subtle, the key question to answer is if the described behavior is expected.
rfetag to all enhancement requests and propose it for the “RFE Review” section of the weekly meeting.
Does the RFE obviously require a spec? Usually this is decided when an RFE is reviewed during the meeting, but some requests are undoubtedly complex, involve changing a lot of critical parts and thus demand a spec.
needs-spectag to enhancement requests that obviously need a spec. Otherwise leave it until the meeting.
Apply additional tags:
All hardware type specific stories should receive a corresponding tag (e.g.
API-related stories should have an
CI issues should have a
The next actions must only be done by a core team member (or an experienced full-time contributor appoined by the PTL):
Can the RFE be automatically approved? It happens if the RFE requests an implementation of a driver feature that is already implemented for other drivers and does not pose additional complexity.
If the RFE can be automatically approved, apply the
rfe-approvedtag. If unsure, never apply the tag! Talk to the PTL instead.
Does the RFE have a corresponding spec approved? If yes, apply the
In the end, apply the
ironic-triagedtag to make the story as triaged.
While we hope to fix all issues that our consumers hit, it is unfortunately not
realistic. Stories may be closed by marking all their tasks
the following cases:
No solution has been proposed in 1 calendar year.
Additional information has been requested from the reporter, and no update has been provided in 1 calendar month.
The request no longer aligns with the direction of the project.
As usual, common sense should be applied when closing stories.