* [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature
2017-01-31 22:50 [PATCH 0/4] Some optimizations on top time selftest checks leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
@ 2017-01-31 22:50 ` leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 23:16 ` Richard Purdie
2017-02-02 12:40 ` Burton, Ross
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 2/4] selftest/buildoptions: force compile task instead of cleaning sstates leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez @ 2017-01-31 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
From: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
The minimal is much faster to build that sato, so use the former to test
read-only feature.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
---
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 5 +----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
index d40eb00..004b2dd 100644
--- a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
+++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
@@ -44,11 +44,8 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):
@testcase(1435)
def test_read_only_image(self):
- distro_features = get_bb_var('DISTRO_FEATURES')
- if not ('x11' in distro_features and 'opengl' in distro_features):
- self.skipTest('core-image-sato requires x11 and opengl in distro features')
self.write_config('IMAGE_FEATURES += "read-only-rootfs"')
- bitbake("core-image-sato")
+ bitbake("core-image-minimal")
# do_image will fail if there are any pending postinsts
class DiskMonTest(oeSelfTest):
--
2.1.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
@ 2017-01-31 23:16 ` Richard Purdie
2017-02-01 15:02 ` Leonardo Sandoval
2017-02-02 12:40 ` Burton, Ross
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Richard Purdie @ 2017-01-31 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez, openembedded-core
On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 16:50 -0600,
leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
>
> The minimal is much faster to build that sato, so use the former to
> test
> read-only feature.
>
> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.in
> tel.com>
> ---
> meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 5 +----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> index d40eb00..004b2dd 100644
> --- a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> +++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> @@ -44,11 +44,8 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):
>
> @testcase(1435)
> def test_read_only_image(self):
> - distro_features = get_bb_var('DISTRO_FEATURES')
> - if not ('x11' in distro_features and 'opengl' in
> distro_features):
> - self.skipTest('core-image-sato requires x11 and opengl
> in distro features')
> self.write_config('IMAGE_FEATURES += "read-only-rootfs"')
> - bitbake("core-image-sato")
> + bitbake("core-image-minimal")
> # do_image will fail if there are any pending postinsts
Whilst this is certainly going to be a touch faster, I believe we do
want to test read only rootfs with a larger image like sato to make
sure the postinsts really do work with a read only system?
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature
2017-01-31 23:16 ` Richard Purdie
@ 2017-02-01 15:02 ` Leonardo Sandoval
2017-02-01 16:00 ` Richard Purdie
2017-02-01 16:13 ` Patrick Ohly
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Leonardo Sandoval @ 2017-02-01 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Purdie, openembedded-core
On 01/31/2017 05:16 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 16:50 -0600,
> leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> The minimal is much faster to build that sato, so use the former to
>> test
>> read-only feature.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.in
>> tel.com>
>> ---
>> meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 5 +----
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
>> b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
>> index d40eb00..004b2dd 100644
>> --- a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
>> +++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
>> @@ -44,11 +44,8 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):
>>
>> @testcase(1435)
>> def test_read_only_image(self):
>> - distro_features = get_bb_var('DISTRO_FEATURES')
>> - if not ('x11' in distro_features and 'opengl' in
>> distro_features):
>> - self.skipTest('core-image-sato requires x11 and opengl
>> in distro features')
>> self.write_config('IMAGE_FEATURES += "read-only-rootfs"')
>> - bitbake("core-image-sato")
>> + bitbake("core-image-minimal")
>> # do_image will fail if there are any pending postinsts
> Whilst this is certainly going to be a touch faster, I believe we do
> want to test read only rootfs with a larger image like sato to make
> sure the postinsts really do work with a read only system?
I don't get it. What would make the test different using a larger image?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature
2017-02-01 15:02 ` Leonardo Sandoval
@ 2017-02-01 16:00 ` Richard Purdie
2017-02-01 16:13 ` Patrick Ohly
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Richard Purdie @ 2017-02-01 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leonardo Sandoval, openembedded-core
On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 09:02 -0600, Leonardo Sandoval wrote:
>
> On 01/31/2017 05:16 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 16:50 -0600,
> > leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.c
> > > om>
> > >
> > > The minimal is much faster to build that sato, so use the former
> > > to
> > > test
> > > read-only feature.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linu
> > > x.in
> > > tel.com>
> > > ---
> > > meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 5 +----
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> > > b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> > > index d40eb00..004b2dd 100644
> > > --- a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> > > +++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> > > @@ -44,11 +44,8 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):
> > >
> > > @testcase(1435)
> > > def test_read_only_image(self):
> > > - distro_features = get_bb_var('DISTRO_FEATURES')
> > > - if not ('x11' in distro_features and 'opengl' in
> > > distro_features):
> > > - self.skipTest('core-image-sato requires x11 and
> > > opengl
> > > in distro features')
> > > self.write_config('IMAGE_FEATURES += "read-only-
> > > rootfs"')
> > > - bitbake("core-image-sato")
> > > + bitbake("core-image-minimal")
> > > # do_image will fail if there are any pending postinsts
> > Whilst this is certainly going to be a touch faster, I believe we
> > do
> > want to test read only rootfs with a larger image like sato to make
> > sure the postinsts really do work with a read only system?
> I don't get it. What would make the test different using a larger
> image?
The large image is more complex, it has more complex post-installs and
more utilities using update alternatives. The areas read-only rootfs
tends to break is in these areas as for example if certain postinstalls
get deferred to "on device at first boot", read-only rootfs breaks.
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature
2017-02-01 15:02 ` Leonardo Sandoval
2017-02-01 16:00 ` Richard Purdie
@ 2017-02-01 16:13 ` Patrick Ohly
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Ohly @ 2017-02-01 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leonardo Sandoval; +Cc: openembedded-core
On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 09:02 -0600, Leonardo Sandoval wrote:
>
> On 01/31/2017 05:16 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 16:50 -0600,
> > leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com wrote:
> >> From: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
> >> - bitbake("core-image-sato")
> >> + bitbake("core-image-minimal")
> >> # do_image will fail if there are any pending postinsts
> > Whilst this is certainly going to be a touch faster, I believe we do
> > want to test read only rootfs with a larger image like sato to make
> > sure the postinsts really do work with a read only system?
>
> I don't get it. What would make the test different using a larger image?
The postinst of each component installed into the image must work
properly in a read-only rootfs configuration. So the test is partly for
image creation, partly for the components, and thus more comprehensive
when using a larger image.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 23:16 ` Richard Purdie
@ 2017-02-02 12:40 ` Burton, Ross
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Burton, Ross @ 2017-02-02 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leonardo Sandoval; +Cc: OE-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 381 bytes --]
On 31 January 2017 at 22:50, <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
wrote:
> The minimal is much faster to build that sato, so use the former to test
> read-only feature.
>
What Patrick and Richard said. In particular, it's things like the
gdk-pixbuf and fontconfig postinsts which we need to ensure are not
delayed, and these are not in minimal images.
Ross
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 815 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/4] selftest/buildoptions: force compile task instead of cleaning sstates
2017-01-31 22:50 [PATCH 0/4] Some optimizations on top time selftest checks leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
@ 2017-01-31 22:50 ` leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 23:16 ` Richard Purdie
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 3/4] selftest/bbtests: use write_config instead of local.conf file leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftest/archiver: invalidate stamps instead of removing TMPDIR leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
3 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez @ 2017-01-31 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
From: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
There is no need to clean m4 sstates, use force instead.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
---
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
index 004b2dd..a83088f 100644
--- a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
+++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
@@ -36,8 +36,7 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):
p = get_bb_var('SYSROOT_DESTDIR', 'ccache-native') + get_bb_var('bindir', 'ccache-native') + "/" + "ccache"
self.assertTrue(os.path.isfile(p), msg = "No ccache found (%s)" % p)
self.write_config('INHERIT += "ccache"')
- bitbake("m4 -c cleansstate")
- bitbake("m4 -c compile")
+ bitbake("m4 -c compile -f")
self.addCleanup(bitbake, 'ccache-native -ccleansstate')
res = runCmd("grep ccache %s" % (os.path.join(get_bb_var("WORKDIR","m4"),"temp/log.do_compile")), ignore_status=True)
self.assertEqual(0, res.status, msg="No match for ccache in m4 log.do_compile. For further details: %s" % os.path.join(get_bb_var("WORKDIR","m4"),"temp/log.do_compile"))
--
2.1.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2/4] selftest/buildoptions: force compile task instead of cleaning sstates
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 2/4] selftest/buildoptions: force compile task instead of cleaning sstates leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
@ 2017-01-31 23:16 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Richard Purdie @ 2017-01-31 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez, openembedded-core
On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 16:50 -0600,
leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
>
> There is no need to clean m4 sstates, use force instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.in
> tel.com>
> ---
> meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> index 004b2dd..a83088f 100644
> --- a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> +++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/buildoptions.py
> @@ -36,8 +36,7 @@ class ImageOptionsTests(oeSelfTest):
> p = get_bb_var('SYSROOT_DESTDIR', 'ccache-native') +
> get_bb_var('bindir', 'ccache-native') + "/" + "ccache"
> self.assertTrue(os.path.isfile(p), msg = "No ccache found
> (%s)" % p)
> self.write_config('INHERIT += "ccache"')
> - bitbake("m4 -c cleansstate")
> - bitbake("m4 -c compile")
> + bitbake("m4 -c compile -f")
> self.addCleanup(bitbake, 'ccache-native -ccleansstate')
> res = runCmd("grep ccache %s" %
> (os.path.join(get_bb_var("WORKDIR","m4"),"temp/log.do_compile")),
> ignore_status=True)
> self.assertEqual(0, res.status, msg="No match for ccache in
> m4 log.do_compile. For further details: %s" %
> os.path.join(get_bb_var("WORKDIR","m4"),"temp/log.do_compile"))
If we force something like this we really need a cleanup in there to
remove the taint too...
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/4] selftest/bbtests: use write_config instead of local.conf file
2017-01-31 22:50 [PATCH 0/4] Some optimizations on top time selftest checks leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 2/4] selftest/buildoptions: force compile task instead of cleaning sstates leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
@ 2017-01-31 22:50 ` leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftest/archiver: invalidate stamps instead of removing TMPDIR leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez @ 2017-01-31 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
From: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
Extra configuration data should be write using the write_config
method instead of manually appending to the local.conf file
Signed-off-by: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
---
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/bbtests.py | 5 +----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/bbtests.py b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/bbtests.py
index c4e50cb..9dbac95 100644
--- a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/bbtests.py
+++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/bbtests.py
@@ -229,10 +229,7 @@ INHERIT_remove = \"report-error\"
@testcase(1119)
def test_non_gplv3(self):
- data = 'INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE = "GPLv3"'
- conf = os.path.join(self.builddir, 'conf/local.conf')
- ftools.append_file(conf ,data)
- self.addCleanup(ftools.remove_from_file, conf ,data)
+ self.write_config('INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE = "GPLv3"')
result = bitbake('readline', ignore_status=True)
self.assertEqual(result.status, 0, "Bitbake failed, exit code %s, output %s" % (result.status, result.output))
lic_dir = get_bb_var('LICENSE_DIRECTORY')
--
2.1.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4/4] selftest/archiver: invalidate stamps instead of removing TMPDIR
2017-01-31 22:50 [PATCH 0/4] Some optimizations on top time selftest checks leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 3/4] selftest/bbtests: use write_config instead of local.conf file leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
@ 2017-01-31 22:50 ` leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez @ 2017-01-31 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
From: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
There is no need to remove the whole TMPDIR, instead just invalidate
stamps and build again the targets.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
---
meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/archiver.py | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/archiver.py b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/archiver.py
index 97b6f5b..c8c4533 100644
--- a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/archiver.py
+++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/archiver.py
@@ -28,8 +28,8 @@ class Archiver(oeSelfTest):
features += 'COPYLEFT_PN_EXCLUDE = "%s"\n' % exclude_recipe
self.write_config(features)
- shutil.rmtree(get_bb_var('TMPDIR'))
- bitbake("%s %s" % (include_recipe, exclude_recipe))
+ bitbake("-C fetch %s" % include_recipe)
+ bitbake("-C fetch %s" % exclude_recipe)
src_path = os.path.join(get_bb_var('DEPLOY_DIR_SRC'), get_bb_var('TARGET_SYS'))
--
2.1.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread