[LTP] [RFC] new LTP testrunner

[Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> Hi!
> > - replacing runltp + ltp-pan
> > What I'm missing is the local use-case we have now. Something
> > like backend:local, that will run the test on local system
> > and produce same format of results. ssh into localhost
> > adds complexity - some test wrapper might not know the
> > password for system it has been spawned on.
> 
> It's there but not in the README, there is a sh backend that just runs
> the tests in a localy executed shell see --help.
> 
> But I would like to discourage running the testcases locally for any
> test automation/CI.

Can you elaborate? Assuming I don't crash, what is the negative
of running locally?

> 
> > The way we coped with (fatal) issues is pre-processing
> > runtest files based on kernel version, package versions,
> > architecture, etc.
> 
> This is something I wanted to avoid if possible because it requires to
> maintain a database which time consuming and prone to errors.

True, but if you want to avoid wasting countless hours just
on reboots due to known bugs, there probably isn't a better way.

This might not be big deal for VMs, but some bare metal
takes its time to come up.

Regards,
Jan

> 
> > IMO backend:local (and ssh) might be closest to what people do now.
> >
> > - RFE: filter tests
> > have ability to run only some tests based on some filter
> > which is very common question I get about runltp
> 
> Yes, this is missing, but easy to add.
> 
> > - RFE: skip build/installation
> > for some cross-compiling users
> >   
> > - "All backends needs to be able to reach internet"
> > Why is this needed?
> 
> Just because the tool is expected to install LTP from GitHub.
> 
> But in the latest version if there is /opt/ltp/ already present on the
> target machine it's not reinstalled unless you request it.
> 
> As I said it's still in a proof-of-concept state...
> 
> --
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis@suse.cz
>