From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1AC371A54 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:27:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=intel; t=1490286437; x=1521822437; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kikhNucjTk5wLluhf2AthrToVsAoHdeKPCWrJBjzp5k=; b=jj8Kdxgcz06uGgOyAYZRYP2MUWZcSL7PqkediIvcDA8dxuJ6sAE9ODjL 6WLrjEIGJI1mwDa/Eq7SQd/dpyAR3Q==; Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Mar 2017 09:27:16 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,210,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="64171812" Received: from lsandov1-mobl2.zpn.intel.com ([10.219.128.141]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2017 09:27:15 -0700 Message-ID: <1490286911.28281.84.camel@linux.intel.com> From: Leonardo Sandoval To: Paul Eggleton Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:35:11 -0600 In-Reply-To: <6135390.NMCEsh2eSl@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20170322205331.6648.75789@do.openembedded.org> <6135390.NMCEsh2eSl@peggleto-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IOKclyBwYXRjaHRlc3Q6IGZhaWx1cmUgZm9yICMxMDYxODogSW5jcmVhc2Ugb2Utc2VsZnRlc3QgY292ZXJhZ2Ugb2Ygd2ljIGNvZGViYXNlIChmaXJzdCBwYXJ0KQ==?= X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:27:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 15:57 +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote: > Hi Leo, > > On Thursday, 23 March 2017 9:53:31 AM NZDT Patchwork wrote: > > == Series Details == > > > > Series: #10618: Increase oe-selftest coverage of wic codebase (first part) > > Revision: 1 > > URL : https://patchwork.openembedded.org/series/5923/ > > State : failure > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > Thank you for submitting this patch series to OpenEmbedded Core. This is > > an automated response. Several tests have been executed on the proposed > > series by patchtest resulting in the following results: > > > > > > > > * Issue [pretest_src_uri_checksums_not_changed] > > > > * Issue No modified recipes, skipping pretest > > [pretest_src_uri_left_files] > > > > * Issue No added or modified recipes, skipping pretest > > [pretest_lic_files_chksum_modified_not_mentioned] > > > > * Issue [pretest_pylint] > > > > * Issue [test_max_line_length] > > > > * Issue [test_cve_presence_in_commit_message] > > > > * Issue [test_cve_tag_format] > > > > * Issue [test_shortlog_format] > > > > * Issue [test_shortlog_length] > > > > * Issue [test_summary_presence] > > > > * Issue [test_upstream_status_format] > > > > * Issue There are no new software patches, no reason to test > > Upstream-Status presence [test_upstream_status_presence] > > > > * Issue Until general agreement with the community, disabling it > > [test_commit_message_presence] > > > > * Issue [test_mbox_format] > > > > * Issue [test_series_merge_on_head] > > > > * Issue [test_src_uri_checksums_not_changed] > > > > * Issue No modified recipes, skipping pretest > > [test_src_uri_left_files] > > > > * Issue [test_bugzilla_entry_format] > > > > * Issue [test_signed_off_by_presence] > > > > * Issue There are no new software patches, no reason to test > > Signed-off-by presence [test_signed_off_by_presence] > > > > * Issue Series merged, no reason to check other mailing lists > > [test_target_mailing_list] > > > > * Issue No modified or added recipes, skipping test > > [test_lic_files_chksum_modified_not_mentioned] > > > > * Issue No added recipes, skipping test > > [test_lic_files_chksum_presence] > > > > * Issue [test_pylint] > > > > * Issue [test_author_valid] > > These results look a bit broken - some are skipped and really shouldn't be > showing at all. Was the script invoked in a different way to normal? > Yes, it was invoked in a different way so there was not filtering on failures. From now on, we should be getting emails just with test failures. Leo > Cheers, > Paul > > -- > > Paul Eggleton > Intel Open Source Technology Centre