From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AE1CCA47F for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 22:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242056AbiF0WE0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:04:26 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37044 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242852AbiF0WD1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:03:27 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39A851EC7F for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FC6B21C6F; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 22:02:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1656367328; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YnLMpOW8vEQrFEzIWK3VUR+F2G4BdCVN7cqYRvY5rQs=; b=sJEolcZljYHnuTmYk4D/s7m4BK5HI3lC6gDYBQWuMkO8PluQ82fzFBEzWkt6woNmMM/kut 9UFdpyIIjsNTeu8YjHMqC9vPiwMOxQHBy7zNyYCidujgjqshPLI+2HuzJ+J4z/qcX6nzSU G41tfe00w828ImDLsayt9nAFkylPH0I= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1656367328; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YnLMpOW8vEQrFEzIWK3VUR+F2G4BdCVN7cqYRvY5rQs=; b=m+/ecqzgL2BCdO7r1w6VH5L0zbu5dPaHb443JYsL729+UKeZhk7tbiBqfFt9+vznO01M+b 5/RFULqa5p+yHXCg== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 783EC13AB2; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 22:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id L9TTG+AoumLWZgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 27 Jun 2022 22:02:08 +0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 00:02:06 +0200 From: David Disseldorp To: "Theodore Ts'o" Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] add option to rerun failed tests Message-ID: <20220628000206.4d079c06@suse.de> In-Reply-To: References: <20220621160153.29591-1-ddiss@suse.de> <20220624103243.10188970@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:18:58 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:32:43AM +0200, David Disseldorp wrote: > > Yes, I forgot to mention that, sorry. As Zorro indicated, these were > > done atop the v2022.06.12 tag with the following series applied: > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20220620192934.21694-1-ddiss@suse.de/ > > Got it, thanks. Sorry, I had forgotten that we had the next branch now. > > I'll try to do a full review once I'm able to give the patches a spin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > That seems sensible, I'll add this functionality. > > I *think* that should happen automatically when _make_testcase_report > gets called after each iteration. So that might be easier than having > to do any kind of special case handling. (Which is why that was going > to be how I was planning on tackling it before you went ahead and > implemented --- thanks for that!!) It does, but I've messed around with a few things in that code path, so just need to make sure that this works as expected :). It should be working this way in the v2 patchset that I'm about to send... > > > As far as haivng the .bad and .full files, I agree that some kind of > > > .rerun-NN suffix would make a lot of sense. > > > > I had a bit of a play with this and it does get a bit ugly if we want to > > prefix things like .dmesg as well. The xunit rerun entries will already > > capture everything, but I suppose it's still needed for those not using > > xunit reports. > > Well, actually, one of the things on my TODO list was to implement a > new report type which would removed the xunit fields from > the xunit file. The reason behind that is sometimes the the > NNN.out.bad files can get huge --- and the Python library for parsing > junit XML files has a safety mechanism which will error out if a field > is larger than 10MB, to prevent some denial of service attacks. And > I've had some XFS NNN.out.bad files get to be 30MB or larger! Ouch, that does sound hard to parse. One thing I also noticed is that a stray "]]>" CDATA terminator in the any of the captured content will likely also cause some parsing headaches, so should be filtered. > When that happens, it causes the Python script I use to parse the XML > file to fail. In addition, since I already have a different mechanism > for saving the full set of test artifiacts ---- sometimes having the > NNN.full file is really useful for root causing the failure --- having > two copies of the out.bad files in both the Xunit file and in my test > artifacts tarball is a bit of a waste. > > I had a POC which implemented this, but then Darrick had a feature > request, since for his workflow, it would be useful if saved only the > first N lines and last N lines in the xunit file, since that's > typically sufficient to figure out what's going on. And I haven't had > a chance to get back to it. Given that the extra debugging details are already there in the current xunit output, I think we may be stuck with them. That said, it should be pretty straightforward to add a new "xunit-brief" or similar report type under the (currently single-purpose) report API. Cheers, David