From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH OSSTEST v2 5/6] ts-openstack-tempest: Run Tempest to check OpenStack Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:17:51 +0100 Message-ID: <1443187071.25250.144.camel@citrix.com> References: <1438880611-13244-1-git-send-email-anthony.perard@citrix.com> <1438880611-13244-6-git-send-email-anthony.perard@citrix.com> <1441717571.24450.89.camel@citrix.com> <20150925130428.GH1623@perard.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150925130428.GH1623@perard.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Anthony PERARD Cc: Ian Jackson , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 14:04 +0100, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > > + > > > +sub tempest() { > > > + # The regex is the default one + avoid the two tests know to not work > > > + # which are two variations of test_volume_boot_pattern. > > > + target_cmd($ho, < > > > + $builddir/tempest/run_tempest.sh > > > > Is $builddir here inherited from the previous script? I'm not sure how that > > works? > > I think the genereted $builddir end up been the same as in the previous > script, because it's generated based on the flight name and the job name. > Both script (ts-openstack-devstack-deploy and ts-openstack-tempest) are > part of the same jobs. I think all current build jobs happen to only have a single step which actually does the build. So I'm not sure if this is deliberate or not. Ian? Ian. > > > > -V -- --concurrency=2 > > > '(?!.*\\[.*\\bslow\\b.*\\]|.*test_volume_boot_pattern)(^tempest\\.(ap > > > i|sc > > > enario|thirdparty))' > > > > I think think ought to at least be in a variable with a comment > > explaining > > why each one is omitted. > > I'll add a comment, and put this in a variable. > > > It could go into a runvar, but I'm not too sure about that. > > I don't see a good use of the runvar right now. But it could maybe used > to > bisect a single Tempest test, if that even possible. Anyway, I don't > think > I want to try to use a runvar for that right now. > > > > +END > > > +} > > > + > > > +tempest(); >