Re: [LTP] [Automated-testing] [RFC PATCH 1/3] runltp: Deprecate, add info about kirk

[Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>]

Hi!
> I'm in the same position as Richard here.  Fuego uses runltp on the target (device under test),
> and has it's own mechanisms for detecting timeouts or kernel crashes, gathering test output,
> restarting targets, etc. from a test host.  These same mechanisms are used for other tests.
> Fuego also has mechanisms for running individual LTP tests on the device (by installing the
> individual test, executing it, gathering results remotely, and removing the test and test artifacts).
> This is used in cases where the overhead of installing and running runltp is too big.  I haven't
> investigated kirk yet (but it was on my list of things to do).

If you are executing a single test you do not need runltp. The current
added value of runltp is that it loops over all tests in a set of
runtest files, collects the results and saves overall status. If you
want to run a single test, you need to set up a few environment
variables and you are good to go.

> Will kirk and/or LTP provide a simple mechanism for quick install and execution of
> individual tests or small sets of tests (and itself)?  Fuego's model of testing is geared towards
> testing of production devices, where no test artifacts are pre-installed on the target,
> and full cleanup (removal of tests and test artifacts) is done between tests.

Currently installation is completely out of scope for kirk. The workflow
we have expects LTP installed and first step kirk does is to download
runtest files and metadata from the device under test.

And I'm perfectly aware that single workflow will not fit everybody,
that's why my initial idea was a set of reusable components rather than
a full solution.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp