[libvirt baseline test] 25903: tolerable FAIL

[libvirt baseline test] 25903: tolerable FAIL

[xen.org]

"Old" tested version had not actually been tested; therefore in this
flight we test it, rather than a new candidate.  The baseline, if
any, is the most recent actually tested revision.

flight 25903 libvirt real [real]
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/25903/

Failures :-/ but no regressions.

Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
 test-armhf-armhf-libvirt      1 xen-build-check(1)           blocked  n/a
 build-armhf-libvirt           4 libvirt-build                fail   never pass
 test-amd64-i386-libvirt       9 guest-start                  fail   never pass
 test-amd64-amd64-libvirt      9 guest-start                  fail   never pass

version targeted for testing:
 libvirt              6077be466efcc2d57679e59db8a4b1626ed0757c
baseline version:
 libvirt              4090e15399672c74227dcebc19d91b151d5d049f

------------------------------------------------------------
People who touched revisions under test:
------------------------------------------------------------

jobs:
 build-amd64                                                  pass    
 build-armhf                                                  pass    
 build-i386                                                   pass    
 build-amd64-libvirt                                          pass    
 build-armhf-libvirt                                          fail    
 build-i386-libvirt                                           pass    
 build-amd64-oldkern                                          pass    
 build-i386-oldkern                                           pass    
 build-amd64-pvops                                            pass    
 build-armhf-pvops                                            pass    
 build-i386-pvops                                             pass    
 test-amd64-amd64-libvirt                                     fail    
 test-armhf-armhf-libvirt                                     blocked 
 test-amd64-i386-libvirt                                      fail    


------------------------------------------------------------
sg-report-flight on osstest.cam.xci-test.com
logs: /home/xc_osstest/logs
images: /home/xc_osstest/images

Logs, config files, etc. are available at
    http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs

Test harness code can be found at
    http://xenbits.xensource.com/gitweb?p=osstest.git;a=summary


Published tested tree is already up to date.

------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [libvirt baseline test] 25903: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Campbell]

On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 13:27 +0100, xen.org wrote:
> "Old" tested version had not actually been tested; therefore in this
> flight we test it, rather than a new candidate.  The baseline, if
> any, is the most recent actually tested revision.
> 
> flight 25903 libvirt real [real]
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/25903/
> 
> Failures :-/ but no regressions.
> 
> Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
>  test-armhf-armhf-libvirt      1 xen-build-check(1)           blocked  n/a
>  build-armhf-libvirt           4 libvirt-build                fail   never pass

This was lack of build dependencies on the arm build host...

> [...]
> version targeted for testing:
>  libvirt              6077be466efcc2d57679e59db8a4b1626ed0757c
> baseline version:
>  libvirt              4090e15399672c74227dcebc19d91b151d5d049f
[...]
> Published tested tree is already up to date.

This is because, despite the versions quoted, due to the first paragraph
we are actually testing 4090e here, correct?

When I run it again, it will actually test 6077b and push it if it
succeeds?

Ian.

Re: [libvirt baseline test] 25903: tolerable FAIL

[Ian Jackson]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [libvirt baseline test] 25903: tolerable FAIL"):
> On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 13:27 +0100, xen.org wrote:
> > [...]
> > version targeted for testing:
> >  libvirt              6077be466efcc2d57679e59db8a4b1626ed0757c
> > baseline version:
> >  libvirt              4090e15399672c74227dcebc19d91b151d5d049f
> [...]
> > Published tested tree is already up to date.
> 
> This is because, despite the versions quoted, due to the first paragraph
> we are actually testing 4090e here, correct?

This is a bug in cr-daily-branch.

This message is produced when wantpush=false.  But wantpush might be
false because
 - OSSTEST_PUSH is false (only set to true in daily-cron-settings-real)
 - baseline untested (what we had here)
 - "$tree" is unknown (although I think this would fail elsewhere)
 - input and output revisions are the same

> When I run it again, it will actually test 6077b and push it if it
> succeeds?

I think so.  I think it will compare the results to those of 4090e.

Ian.

[OSSTEST PATCH] cr-daily-branch: Print better message re lack of push

[Ian Jackson]

wantpush might be false because
 - OSSTEST_PUSH is false (only set to true in daily-cron-settings-real)
 - baseline untested (what we had here)
 - "$tree" is unknown (although I think this would fail elsewhere)
 - input and output revisions are the same

Print the message "Published tested tree is already up to date" only
if that's actually the case.

Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
---
 cr-daily-branch |    6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/cr-daily-branch b/cr-daily-branch
index 02fef15..1d5ceb3 100755
--- a/cr-daily-branch
+++ b/cr-daily-branch
@@ -277,7 +277,11 @@ fi
 
 if ! $wantpush; then
         echo
-        echo "Published tested tree is already up to date."
+	if [ "x$NEW_REVISION" = "x$OLD_REVISION" ]; then
+	        echo "Published tested tree is already up to date."
+	else
+		echo "Push not applicable."
+	fi
         echo
 elif $push; then
         echo
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [OSSTEST PATCH] cr-daily-branch: Print better message re lack of push

[Ian Jackson]

Ian Jackson writes ("[OSSTEST PATCH] cr-daily-branch: Print better message re lack of push"):
> wantpush might be false because
>  - OSSTEST_PUSH is false (only set to true in daily-cron-settings-real)
>  - baseline untested (what we had here)
>  - "$tree" is unknown (although I think this would fail elsewhere)
>  - input and output revisions are the same
> 
> Print the message "Published tested tree is already up to date" only
> if that's actually the case.

I haven't tested this (and it's not easy to test all the cases).
Instead, I'd appreciate a careful code review of this small change.

Thanks,
Ian.

Re: [OSSTEST PATCH] cr-daily-branch: Print better message re lack of push

[Ian Campbell]

On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 16:43 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("[OSSTEST PATCH] cr-daily-branch: Print better message re lack of push"):
> > wantpush might be false because
> >  - OSSTEST_PUSH is false (only set to true in daily-cron-settings-real)
> >  - baseline untested (what we had here)
> >  - "$tree" is unknown (although I think this would fail elsewhere)
> >  - input and output revisions are the same
> > 
> > Print the message "Published tested tree is already up to date" only
> > if that's actually the case.
> 
> I haven't tested this (and it's not easy to test all the cases).
> Instead, I'd appreciate a careful code review of this small change.

I did test at part of my libvirt branch provisioning runs, and it
appears to do the right thing.

It also appears correct to me by inspection, apart from the mix of hard
and soft tabs.

Ian.