[PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[ecordonnier]

From: Etienne Cordonnier <ecordonnier@snap.com>

The builtin command "sleep" was getting executed instead of the busybox binary.
Hence "pidof sleep" was empty and the test was failing.

Signed-off-by: Etienne Cordonnier <ecordonnier@snap.com>
---
 meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py b/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
index 5481e1d840..a2229848e7 100644
--- a/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
+++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ class SystemdServiceTests(SystemdTest):
         Verify that call-stacks generated by systemd-coredump contain symbolicated call-stacks,
         extracted from the minidebuginfo metadata (.gnu_debugdata elf section).
         """
-        t_thread = threading.Thread(target=self.target.run, args=("ulimit -c unlimited && sleep 1000",))
+        t_thread = threading.Thread(target=self.target.run, args=("ulimit -c unlimited && /usr/bin/sleep 1000",))
         t_thread.start()
         time.sleep(1)
 
-- 
2.36.1.vfs.0.0

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2024-05-29 at 12:08 +0200, Etienne Cordonnier via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> From: Etienne Cordonnier <ecordonnier@snap.com>
> 
> The builtin command "sleep" was getting executed instead of the busybox binary.
> Hence "pidof sleep" was empty and the test was failing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Etienne Cordonnier <ecordonnier@snap.com>
> ---
>  meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py b/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
> index 5481e1d840..a2229848e7 100644
> --- a/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
> +++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ class SystemdServiceTests(SystemdTest):
>          Verify that call-stacks generated by systemd-coredump contain symbolicated call-stacks,
>          extracted from the minidebuginfo metadata (.gnu_debugdata elf section).
>          """
> -        t_thread = threading.Thread(target=self.target.run, args=("ulimit -c unlimited && sleep 1000",))
> +        t_thread = threading.Thread(target=self.target.run, args=("ulimit -c unlimited && /usr/bin/sleep 1000",))
>          t_thread.start()
>          time.sleep(1)

I get a bit nervous about hardcoding paths like "/usr/bin",
particularly in the context of some distros liking to move things
around. We may want to put a shutil.which("sleep") call in instead (and
an import shutil if needed)?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[Etienne Cordonnier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2353 bytes --]

Hi Richard,
I thought it was OK because systemd requires usrmerge, but I've sent a new
version of the patch using "env sleep" instead of "/usr/bin/sleep" in order
to be safe. I hope this also fixes the test failure which was happening on
CI.
One reason this could be failing in CI is that this functionality currently
requires user-namespaces enabled in the kernel (e.g. core-image-sato does
have CONFIG_USER_NS, thus it works with this image). This is not really by
design, and I'm working on changing this in the upstream systemd:
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/33043 . I can then backport this on
scarthgap if the change is merged upstream.

Étienne

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 4:54 PM Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2024-05-29 at 12:08 +0200, Etienne Cordonnier via
> lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > From: Etienne Cordonnier <ecordonnier@snap.com>
> >
> > The builtin command "sleep" was getting executed instead of the busybox
> binary.
> > Hence "pidof sleep" was empty and the test was failing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Etienne Cordonnier <ecordonnier@snap.com>
> > ---
> >  meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
> b/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
> > index 5481e1d840..a2229848e7 100644
> > --- a/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
> > +++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
> > @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ class SystemdServiceTests(SystemdTest):
> >          Verify that call-stacks generated by systemd-coredump contain
> symbolicated call-stacks,
> >          extracted from the minidebuginfo metadata (.gnu_debugdata elf
> section).
> >          """
> > -        t_thread = threading.Thread(target=self.target.run,
> args=("ulimit -c unlimited && sleep 1000",))
> > +        t_thread = threading.Thread(target=self.target.run,
> args=("ulimit -c unlimited && /usr/bin/sleep 1000",))
> >          t_thread.start()
> >          time.sleep(1)
>
> I get a bit nervous about hardcoding paths like "/usr/bin",
> particularly in the context of some distros liking to move things
> around. We may want to put a shutil.which("sleep") call in instead (and
> an import shutil if needed)?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3198 bytes --]

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[Etienne Cordonnier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4457 bytes --]

Hi Richard,
thanks for merging the v2 of this patch. Is this test running in CI
currently? I'm thinking I could send a PR to enable minidebuginfo in
poky-altcfg, but is there a way I can verify that this test works in
yocto's CI? (it works locally, but as I mentioned it would fail on a kernel
with CONFIG_USER_NS disabled.)

Étienne


On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 5:24 PM Etienne Cordonnier via
lists.openembedded.org <ecordonnier=snap.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> I thought it was OK because systemd requires usrmerge, but I've sent a new
> version of the patch using "env sleep" instead of "/usr/bin/sleep" in order
> to be safe. I hope this also fixes the test failure which was happening on
> CI.
> One reason this could be failing in CI is that this functionality
> currently requires user-namespaces enabled in the kernel (e.g.
> core-image-sato does have CONFIG_USER_NS, thus it works with this image).
> This is not really by design, and I'm working on changing this in the
> upstream systemd: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/33043 . I can
> then backport this on scarthgap if the change is merged upstream.
>
> Étienne
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 4:54 PM Richard Purdie <
> richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2024-05-29 at 12:08 +0200, Etienne Cordonnier via
>> lists.openembedded.org
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openembedded.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw&r=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsRih1DULJTKUkSGa66m67E&m=qu0Injv6pHxfa5BgL3x29y11Al_3EpMdBOTkj8cWHLaFlxRoh9vy7WMU3VU2o6c-&s=jZOAoPx0ETGk3PoW9Wmzdl9wuDwTZtC_WxYX7O3EPFY&e=>
>> wrote:
>> > From: Etienne Cordonnier <ecordonnier@snap.com>
>> >
>> > The builtin command "sleep" was getting executed instead of the busybox
>> binary.
>> > Hence "pidof sleep" was empty and the test was failing.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Etienne Cordonnier <ecordonnier@snap.com>
>> > ---
>> >  meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py | 2 +-
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
>> b/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
>> > index 5481e1d840..a2229848e7 100644
>> > --- a/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
>> > +++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
>> > @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ class SystemdServiceTests(SystemdTest):
>> >          Verify that call-stacks generated by systemd-coredump contain
>> symbolicated call-stacks,
>> >          extracted from the minidebuginfo metadata (.gnu_debugdata elf
>> section).
>> >          """
>> > -        t_thread = threading.Thread(target=self.target.run,
>> args=("ulimit -c unlimited && sleep 1000",))
>> > +        t_thread = threading.Thread(target=self.target.run,
>> args=("ulimit -c unlimited && /usr/bin/sleep 1000",))
>> >          t_thread.start()
>> >          time.sleep(1)
>>
>> I get a bit nervous about hardcoding paths like "/usr/bin",
>> particularly in the context of some distros liking to move things
>> around. We may want to put a shutil.which("sleep") call in instead (and
>> an import shutil if needed)?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#200026):
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.openembedded.org_g_openembedded-2Dcore_message_200026&d=DwIFaQ&c=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw&r=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsRih1DULJTKUkSGa66m67E&m=qu0Injv6pHxfa5BgL3x29y11Al_3EpMdBOTkj8cWHLaFlxRoh9vy7WMU3VU2o6c-&s=EhlpO7VCVBhijcCMY2T86qar5UZZTaUidFKXQTXXBXA&e=
> Mute This Topic:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.openembedded.org_mt_106365956_7048771&d=DwIFaQ&c=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw&r=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsRih1DULJTKUkSGa66m67E&m=qu0Injv6pHxfa5BgL3x29y11Al_3EpMdBOTkj8cWHLaFlxRoh9vy7WMU3VU2o6c-&s=v89AFdBy-BUex49TuXqDiEFkidJxP27psNJVdVXrgCM&e=
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.openembedded.org_g_openembedded-2Dcore_unsub&d=DwIFaQ&c=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw&r=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsRih1DULJTKUkSGa66m67E&m=qu0Injv6pHxfa5BgL3x29y11Al_3EpMdBOTkj8cWHLaFlxRoh9vy7WMU3VU2o6c-&s=vCbKyJLrNTiyVgVTio-Tl9XdO6erBWJiypaEgcrkqX8&e=
> [ecordonnier@snap.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6999 bytes --]

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[Alexander Kanavin]

It's not typically expected for contributors to know the ins and outs
of the AB test matrix; just send the needed patches, and any fails
will be reported back to you.

Alex

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 13:35, Etienne Cordonnier via
lists.openembedded.org <ecordonnier=snap.com@lists.openembedded.org>
wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
> thanks for merging the v2 of this patch. Is this test running in CI currently? I'm thinking I could send a PR to enable minidebuginfo in poky-altcfg, but is there a way I can verify that this test works in yocto's CI? (it works locally, but as I mentioned it would fail on a kernel with CONFIG_USER_NS disabled.)
>
> Étienne
>
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 5:24 PM Etienne Cordonnier via lists.openembedded.org <ecordonnier=snap.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>> I thought it was OK because systemd requires usrmerge, but I've sent a new version of the patch using "env sleep" instead of "/usr/bin/sleep" in order to be safe. I hope this also fixes the test failure which was happening on CI.
>> One reason this could be failing in CI is that this functionality currently requires user-namespaces enabled in the kernel (e.g. core-image-sato does have CONFIG_USER_NS, thus it works with this image). This is not really by design, and I'm working on changing this in the upstream systemd: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/33043 . I can then backport this on scarthgap if the change is merged upstream.
>>
>> Étienne
>>
>> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 4:54 PM Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2024-05-29 at 12:08 +0200, Etienne Cordonnier via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
>>> > From: Etienne Cordonnier <ecordonnier@snap.com>
>>> >
>>> > The builtin command "sleep" was getting executed instead of the busybox binary.
>>> > Hence "pidof sleep" was empty and the test was failing.
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: Etienne Cordonnier <ecordonnier@snap.com>
>>> > ---
>>> >  meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py | 2 +-
>>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py b/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
>>> > index 5481e1d840..a2229848e7 100644
>>> > --- a/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
>>> > +++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py
>>> > @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ class SystemdServiceTests(SystemdTest):
>>> >          Verify that call-stacks generated by systemd-coredump contain symbolicated call-stacks,
>>> >          extracted from the minidebuginfo metadata (.gnu_debugdata elf section).
>>> >          """
>>> > -        t_thread = threading.Thread(target=self.target.run, args=("ulimit -c unlimited && sleep 1000",))
>>> > +        t_thread = threading.Thread(target=self.target.run, args=("ulimit -c unlimited && /usr/bin/sleep 1000",))
>>> >          t_thread.start()
>>> >          time.sleep(1)
>>>
>>> I get a bit nervous about hardcoding paths like "/usr/bin",
>>> particularly in the context of some distros liking to move things
>>> around. We may want to put a shutil.which("sleep") call in instead (and
>>> an import shutil if needed)?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#200246): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/200246
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/106365956/1686489
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [alex.kanavin@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 13:35 +0200, Etienne Cordonnier wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> thanks for merging the v2 of this patch. Is this test running in CI
> currently? I'm thinking I could send a PR to enable minidebuginfo in
> poky-altcfg, but is there a way I can verify that this test works in
> yocto's CI? (it works locally, but as I mentioned it would fail on a
> kernel with CONFIG_USER_NS disabled.)

I'd have expected it to be tested in CI, yes.

You can see results here for example:

https://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-testresults/tree/runtime/poky-altcfg/qemux86-64/core-image-sato-sdk/testresults.json

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 15:13 +0100, Richard Purdie via
lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 13:35 +0200, Etienne Cordonnier wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> > thanks for merging the v2 of this patch. Is this test running in CI
> > currently? I'm thinking I could send a PR to enable minidebuginfo
> > in
> > poky-altcfg, but is there a way I can verify that this test works
> > in
> > yocto's CI? (it works locally, but as I mentioned it would fail on
> > a
> > kernel with CONFIG_USER_NS disabled.)
> 
> I'd have expected it to be tested in CI, yes.
> 
> You can see results here for example:
> 
> https://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-testresults/tree/runtime/poky-altcfg/qemux86-64/core-image-sato-sdk/testresults.json

Being more specific, there are minidebuginfo tests here:

https://git.yoctoproject.org/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/minidebuginfo.py

with test results here:

https://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-testresults/tree/oeselftest/testresults.json

but that is a larger json file.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[Etienne Cordonnier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2389 bytes --]

Thanks Richard, this is helpful.
This shows that test_systemd_coredump_minidebuginfo is skipped / not
executed, so I'm quite sure the test is still failing in CI as you had
reported in December. I've sent a patch to fix what I think is causing the
CI issue, and another patch to enable the feature in poky-altcfg once the
CI failure is fixed.

Étienne

On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 4:28 PM Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 15:13 +0100, Richard Purdie via
> lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 13:35 +0200, Etienne Cordonnier wrote:
> > > Hi Richard,
> > > thanks for merging the v2 of this patch. Is this test running in CI
> > > currently? I'm thinking I could send a PR to enable minidebuginfo
> > > in
> > > poky-altcfg, but is there a way I can verify that this test works
> > > in
> > > yocto's CI? (it works locally, but as I mentioned it would fail on
> > > a
> > > kernel with CONFIG_USER_NS disabled.)
> >
> > I'd have expected it to be tested in CI, yes.
> >
> > You can see results here for example:
> >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git.yoctoproject.org_yocto-2Dtestresults_tree_runtime_poky-2Daltcfg_qemux86-2D64_core-2Dimage-2Dsato-2Dsdk_testresults.json&d=DwIFaQ&c=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw&r=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsRih1DULJTKUkSGa66m67E&m=VT5mIgXAiw0SxyBc46dQyS_ECUHBzZ6-efmyplXXwC7bFU6wHrv6BRxih0bgXf-O&s=fxG471cE71Up_h9_5zn5AMCspSvX9vZwR-_3lGUEQxc&e=
>
> Being more specific, there are minidebuginfo tests here:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git.yoctoproject.org_poky_tree_meta_lib_oeqa_selftest_cases_minidebuginfo.py&d=DwIFaQ&c=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw&r=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsRih1DULJTKUkSGa66m67E&m=VT5mIgXAiw0SxyBc46dQyS_ECUHBzZ6-efmyplXXwC7bFU6wHrv6BRxih0bgXf-O&s=rBKJ_kiFzQzdclkgzStD5LO90KUAh_xjZmZzYCmy4Mc&e=
>
> with test results here:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git.yoctoproject.org_yocto-2Dtestresults_tree_oeselftest_testresults.json&d=DwIFaQ&c=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw&r=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsRih1DULJTKUkSGa66m67E&m=VT5mIgXAiw0SxyBc46dQyS_ECUHBzZ6-efmyplXXwC7bFU6wHrv6BRxih0bgXf-O&s=kvjEIBBwJ6pnlJEHyyAg_Fzemajwma8z2SVR_mHja0g&e=
>
> but that is a larger json file.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4309 bytes --]

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2024-06-04 at 13:45 +0200, Etienne Cordonnier wrote:
> Thanks Richard, this is helpful.
> This shows that test_systemd_coredump_minidebuginfo is skipped / not
> executed, so I'm quite sure the test is still failing in CI as you
> had reported in December. I've sent a patch to fix what I think is
> causing the CI issue, and another patch to enable the feature in
> poky-altcfg once the CI failure is fixed.

I think it is being tested. There is this test:

https://git.yoctoproject.org/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/minidebuginfo.py

which is run with oe-selftest -r minidebuginfo

which generates results here:


https://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-testresults/tree/oeselftest/testresults.json

e.g.:

            "minidebuginfo.Minidebuginfo.test_minidebuginfo": {
                "duration": 1073.8962650299072,
                "status": "PASSED"
            },

            "minidebuginfo.Minidebuginfo.test_minidebuginfo": {
                "duration": 764.4718866348267,
                "status": "PASSED"
            },

so I think it is being tested in each oe-selftest run (hence the
multiple results)?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[Etienne Cordonnier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2111 bytes --]

I'm talking specifically about test_systemd_coredump_minidebuginfo (the
minidebuginfo test which I wrote in meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py,
not the tests in meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/minidebuginfo.py).

Étienne

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 1:56 PM Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-06-04 at 13:45 +0200, Etienne Cordonnier wrote:
> > Thanks Richard, this is helpful.
> > This shows that test_systemd_coredump_minidebuginfo is skipped / not
> > executed, so I'm quite sure the test is still failing in CI as you
> > had reported in December. I've sent a patch to fix what I think is
> > causing the CI issue, and another patch to enable the feature in
> > poky-altcfg once the CI failure is fixed.
>
> I think it is being tested. There is this test:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git.yoctoproject.org_poky_tree_meta_lib_oeqa_selftest_cases_minidebuginfo.py&d=DwIFaQ&c=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw&r=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsRih1DULJTKUkSGa66m67E&m=3LHd-W_iTYnP8P40BAL8-r4JdqCery51l_QUwjUomCUCwtluWLU6LhJf_b7DoH6Y&s=i7GSqs0NbXHgfofD0OVBT7Vn7ofzIzlRvW91KAVDDBI&e=
>
> which is run with oe-selftest -r minidebuginfo
>
> which generates results here:
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git.yoctoproject.org_yocto-2Dtestresults_tree_oeselftest_testresults.json&d=DwIFaQ&c=ncDTmphkJTvjIDPh0hpF_4vCHvabgGkICC2epckfdiw&r=AhkbNonVuMIGRfPx_Qj9TsRih1DULJTKUkSGa66m67E&m=3LHd-W_iTYnP8P40BAL8-r4JdqCery51l_QUwjUomCUCwtluWLU6LhJf_b7DoH6Y&s=wGnnzbHed5xpJ4j1BjBdN0lpjhd5E3d1MrDS59kZVT0&e=
>
> e.g.:
>
>             "minidebuginfo.Minidebuginfo.test_minidebuginfo": {
>                 "duration": 1073.8962650299072,
>                 "status": "PASSED"
>             },
>
>             "minidebuginfo.Minidebuginfo.test_minidebuginfo": {
>                 "duration": 764.4718866348267,
>                 "status": "PASSED"
>             },
>
> so I think it is being tested in each oe-selftest run (hence the
> multiple results)?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3534 bytes --]

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2024-06-04 at 13:58 +0200, Etienne Cordonnier wrote:
> I'm talking specifically about test_systemd_coredump_minidebuginfo
> (the minidebuginfo test which I wrote
> in meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py, not the tests
> in meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/minidebuginfo.py).

Ok, sorry, I'm struggling to remember all the right context!

I get nervous about blanket distro changes as whilst it adds test
coverage to minidebuginfo, it also removes test coverage from other
things (the non-mini systemd case).

How are we all runtime coverage to the selftest in question, so it
boots and runs the systemd selftests?

Specifically, we'd add config along the lines of:


DISTRO_FEATURES:append = " systemd"
TEST_SUITES = "ping ssh systemd"

and then add a:

bitbake('-c testimage core-image-minimal')

to that testcase in selftest, which would then ensure we do run the
right tests?

If we want to test both the systemd and non-systemd cases we could add
a second test to selftest instead which covers this?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime: fix regression in minidebuginfo test

[Etienne Cordonnier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2252 bytes --]

Hi Richard,
I'm assuming you meant "How about we add runtime coverage to the selftest"
(it got autocorrected to "How are we all runtime coverage to the selftest").

I'll have a look at adding this to selftest to ensure that the test is
executed, however for context you had suggested another solution in
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/topic/102891486#msg191495
, which is why I hadn't done it initially  (it is not a problem at all, I
can change the implementation, I'm just making sure you still have the
context since the previous conversation was 6 months ago):

"I was looking at your patches and thinking we might want to enable
minidebuginfo in poky or perhaps OE-Core by default too."

"We could assume we'll end up enabling this by default and if we do
that, we could add a new runtime tests if it is configured knowing it
will be by default in some of our builds."

"and include running things under runqemu to test target pieces but a
runtime test may be enough for this feature."

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 2:32 PM Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-06-04 at 13:58 +0200, Etienne Cordonnier wrote:
> > I'm talking specifically about test_systemd_coredump_minidebuginfo
> > (the minidebuginfo test which I wrote
> > in meta/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/systemd.py, not the tests
> > in meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/minidebuginfo.py).
>
> Ok, sorry, I'm struggling to remember all the right context!
>
> I get nervous about blanket distro changes as whilst it adds test
> coverage to minidebuginfo, it also removes test coverage from other
> things (the non-mini systemd case).
>
> How are we all runtime coverage to the selftest in question, so it
> boots and runs the systemd selftests?
>
> Specifically, we'd add config along the lines of:
>
>
> DISTRO_FEATURES:append = " systemd"
> TEST_SUITES = "ping ssh systemd"
>
> and then add a:
>
> bitbake('-c testimage core-image-minimal')
>
> to that testcase in selftest, which would then ensure we do run the
> right tests?
>
> If we want to test both the systemd and non-systemd cases we could add
> a second test to selftest instead which covers this?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2874 bytes --]