1112555 - Make Jenkins running on webqa-ci1.qa.scl3.mozilla.com public

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Infrastructure & Operations Graveyard :: WebOps: Other, task)

Description

[Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST]

We have a Jenkins instance running on webqa-ci1.qa.scl3.mozilla.com (see bug 1110213 for details of the VM) that we would like to be publicly accessible. Jenkins is running on port 8080 and so long as you're connected to the VPN you can see the dashboard at http://webqa-ci1.qa.scl3.mozilla.com:8080/

Comment 1

[Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST]

Stephen: Could you provide a little bit of background on this, and also comment if you have any specific requirements? Two questions I would pose are: do we want a more friendly hostname, and do we want to allow users to omit the port? These are likely also things we can address at a later time.

Comment 2

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

(In reply to Dave Hunt (:davehunt) from comment #1)
> Stephen: Could you provide a little bit of background on this, and also
> comment if you have any specific requirements? Two questions I would pose
> are: do we want a more friendly hostname, and do we want to allow users to
> omit the port? These are likely also things we can address at a later time.

Sure thing.  By (safely) opening up Jenkins, we aim to:

* increase Web QA team (automation efforts) visibility (at all applicable levels)
* enable developers (MoCo/MoFo/interested community) + project/product managers to more-easily:
** quickly see not only the scope of our automation efforts on our shared projects, but also:
** in real-time, see the latest status of pass/fail for builds they care about, and can help with
* the same benefits apply for our testing community, who currently have to subscribe to a mailing list of build results, look over static Wiki pages with a list of projects -- a lot of communication back and forth would be saved between our core team and our community, and we could make it all the more easy for them to take ownership of community-led projects, too

We weren't able to open up our current Jenkins during the time our team worked on B2G automation because of the proprietary-builds/binaries which were being stored/cached in Jenkins.

I don't have a preference on the name (it can stand as-is, or we can change it later), and I can also go either way on the port issue :-)

Comment 3

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

I followed up with Joe Stevensen, and the product/component to file for an OpSec review is:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=mozilla.org&component=Operations%20Security%20%28OpSec%29%3A%20Review

Dave, are you up for getting that going?  Thanks!

Comment 4

[Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST]

(In reply to Stephen Donner [:stephend] from comment #3)
> Dave, are you up for getting that going?  Thanks!

I've raised bug 1118241.

Comment 5

[Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST]

With the OpSec review complete, what's the next step towards opening this up?

Comment 6

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

(In reply to Dave Hunt (:davehunt) from comment #5)
> With the OpSec review complete, what's the next step towards opening this up?

I would think getting NetOps to review and hopefully open up the flows necessary to view and use it publically :-)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Infrastructure%20%26%20Operations&component=Mozilla%20VPN:%20ACL%20requests I think

Comment 7

[:Atoll]

(In reply to Stephen Donner [:stephend] from comment #6)
> (In reply to Dave Hunt (:davehunt) from comment #5)
> > With the OpSec review complete, what's the next step towards opening this up?
> 
> I would think getting NetOps to review and hopefully open up the flows
> necessary to view and use it publically :-)
> 
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.
> cgi?product=Infrastructure%20%26%20Operations&component=Mozilla%20VPN:
> %20ACL%20requests I think

For future reference, NetOps: * would be more correct here - likely NetOps: DC ACL Requests.

Comment 8

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

(In reply to Richard Soderberg [:atoll] from comment #7)
 
> For future reference, NetOps: * would be more correct here - likely NetOps:
> DC ACL Requests.

Thx; brain fart there, for sure, on my part!

Comment 9

[Dave Hunt [:davehunt] [he/him] ⌚BST]

This is done, see https://webqa-ci.mozilla.com/ :)