Re: [RFC PATCH] tests/avocado: use new rootfs for orangepi test

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 09:20:36AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 23/11/2022 19.13, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On 23/11/22 15:12, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:
> > > > On 23/11/2022 12.15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > > > On 18/11/22 12:33, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > > > > > The old URL wasn't stable. I suspect the current URL will only be
> > > > > > stable for a few months so maybe we need another strategy for hosting
> > > > > > rootfs snapshots?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >    tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py | 4 ++--
> > > > > >    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py
> > > > > > b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py
> > > > > > index 4c9d551f47..5a2923c423 100644
> > > > > > --- a/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py
> > > > > > +++ b/tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py
> > > > > > @@ -793,8 +793,8 @@ def test_arm_orangepi_sd(self):
> > > > > >            dtb_path =
> > > > > > '/usr/lib/linux-image-current-sunxi/sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb'
> > > > > >            dtb_path = self.extract_from_deb(deb_path, dtb_path)
> > > > > >            rootfs_url =
> > > > > > ('http://storage.kernelci.org/images/rootfs/buildroot/'
> > > > > > -                      'kci-2019.02/armel/base/rootfs.ext2.xz')
> > > > > > -        rootfs_hash = '692510cb625efda31640d1de0a8d60e26040f061'
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > 'buildroot-baseline/20221116.0/armel/rootfs.ext2.xz')
> > > > > > +        rootfs_hash = 'fae32f337c7b87547b10f42599acf109da8b6d9a'
> > > > > If Avocado doesn't find an artifact in its local cache, it will fetch it
> > > > > from the URL.
> > > > > The cache might be populated with artifacts previously downloaded, but
> > > > > their URL is not valid anymore (my case for many tests).
> > > > > We can also add artifacts manually, see [1].
> > > > > I'd rather keep pre-existing tests if possible, to test older
> > > > > (kernel / user-space) images. We don't need to run all the tests all
> > > > > the time:
> > > > > tests can be filtered by tags (see [2]).
> > > > > My preference here is to refactor this test, adding the
> > > > > "kci-2019.02"
> > > > > and "baseline-20221116.0" releases. I can prepare the patch if you /
> > > > > Thomas don't object.
> > > > 
> > > > IMHO we shouldn't keep tests in the upstream git repository where the
> > > > binaries are not available in public anymore. They won't get run by
> > > > new contributors anymore, and also could vanish from the disks of the
> > > > people who previously downloaded it, once they wipe their cache or
> > > > upgrade to a new installation, so the test code will sooner or later
> > > > be bitrotting. But if you want to keep the tests around on your hard
> > > > disk, you could also stick the test in a local branch on your hard
> > > > disk instead.
> > > 
> > > CI/Workstation splits aside I tend to agree with Thomas here that having
> > > tests no one else can run will lead to an accretion of broken tests.
> > 
> > Following this idea, should we remove all boards for which no open
> > source & GPL software is available?
> 
> That's certainly a different topic... but I see where you're heading to.
> 
> My point here is rather: There is an alternative, newer version of the
> kernel available which can be used to test the same thing. The older version
> disappeared from the net, so why should we bother trying to keep that test
> with that version supported if there is a newer version available?

In the ideal world we would test a representative sample of OS across a
wide vintage of years.

The real world though, we're massively struggling to keep avocado running
reliably, and so don't have resources to achieve ideal testing coverage.

We need to aggressively restrict our focus to testing that maximises
the value for our userbase. I think that means focusing on modern
non-EOL operating systems.  So yes, if an old image disappears, cull
it from testing and put something new in its place that is more likely
to actually be used by our userbase. 


With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|