From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18899731B8 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:06:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2016 05:06:31 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,383,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="45358587" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2016 05:06:30 -0800 Received: from linux.intel.com (vmed.fi.intel.com [10.237.72.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0E56A4080; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 05:05:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:06:16 +0200 From: Ed Bartosh To: Jair Gonzalez Message-ID: <20161221130616.GB9628@linux.intel.com> Reply-To: ed.bartosh@linux.intel.com References: <20161220130651.GA16237@linux.intel.com> <017801d25b0c$fbd79330$f386b990$@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <017801d25b0c$fbd79330$f386b990$@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] selftest/wic: extending test coverage for WIC script options 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: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:06:39 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 04:04:06PM -0600, Jair Gonzalez wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ed Bartosh [mailto:ed.bartosh@linux.intel.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 7:07 AM > > To: Jair Gonzalez > > Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 0/4] selftest/wic: extending test > coverage > > for WIC script options > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 03:07:30PM -0600, Jair Gonzalez wrote: > > > Changed in V2: > > > > > > The original patch was splitted and updated according to the > discussion on: > > > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2016- > > Decembe > > > r/130131.html > > > NOTE: The WKS_FILE entry deletion was ommitted from this patch set as > > > it was introduced on the first patch by mistake. > > > > > > The following changes since commit > > 573c646d4cc62dcd0c230381df4940bdf314d495: > > > > > > bitbake: BBHandler: use with instead of open/close (2016-12-16 > > > 10:23:24 +0000) > > > > > > are available in the git repository at: > > > > > > git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky-contrib jairglez/wictest > > > > > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=jairglez/wict > > > est > > > > > > Jair Gonzalez (4): > > > selftest/wic: adding Testopia ID numbers to test cases missing it > > > selftest/wic: code cleanup > > > selftest/wic: reorganizing test methods by functionality > > > selftest/wic: extending test coverage for WIC script options > > > > > > meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/wic.py | 370 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > > 1 file changed, 238 insertions(+), 132 deletions(-) > > > > > > > Thank you for the updated patchset! > > It looks good to me. > > > > BTW, did you measure its impact on the test run time? > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Ed > > Hi Ed, > > Thanks. Regarding the impact, I tested it on my local machine after cleaning > the cache, sstate-cache, downloads and tmp directories, and the difference > between them was about 130 seconds after I applied my commits: > Before: > Ran 28 tests in 4446.939s > After: > Ran 39 tests in 4578.604s > Difference: > 131.665s > > I also tried with a source repository with existing cache and the difference > was about 70 seconds: > Before: > Ran 28 tests in 272.170s > After: > Ran 39 tests in 339.637s > Difference: > 67.467s > Hi Jair, Thanks. The difference is acceptable from my point of view. -- Regards, Ed