Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] ltp: make copyFrom scp command non-fatal

["Matthew" <matthew.zeng@windriver.com>]

Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> writes:

> On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 11:50 -0400, Matthew wrote:
>> [YOCTO #13802]
>>
>> Make the scp failure non-fatal so the ltp tests continue to run and
>> the rest of the logs will be available to see afterwards.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mingde (Matthew) Zeng <matthew.zeng@windriver.com>
>> ---
>>  meta/lib/oeqa/core/target/ssh.py | 11 +++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/core/target/ssh.py b/meta/lib/oeqa/core/target/ssh.py
>> index 090b40a814..1b78e830d4 100644
>> --- a/meta/lib/oeqa/core/target/ssh.py
>> +++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/core/target/ssh.py
>> @@ -61,9 +61,12 @@ class OESSHTarget(OETarget):
>>          self.logger.debug("[Command returned '%d' after %.2f seconds]"
>>                   "" % (status, time.time() - starttime))
>>
>> -        if status and not ignore_status:
>> -            raise AssertionError("Command '%s' returned non-zero exit "
>> -                                 "status %d:\n%s" % (command, status, output))
>> +        if status:
>> +            if not ignore_status:
>> +                raise AssertionError("Command '%s' returned non-zero exit "
>> +                                     "status %d:\n%s" % (command, status, output))
>> +            else:
>> +                self.logger.warning("Command '%s' returned non-zero exit status %d:\n%s" % (command, status, output))
>>
>>          return (status, output)
>>
>> @@ -113,7 +116,7 @@ class OESSHTarget(OETarget):
>>          """
>>          remotePath = '%s@%s:%s' % (self.user, self.ip, remoteSrc)
>>          scpCmd = self.scp + [remotePath, localDst]
>> -        return self._run(scpCmd, ignore_status=False)
>> +        return self._run(scpCmd, ignore_status=True)
>>
>>      def copyDirTo(self, localSrc, remoteDst):
>>          """
>
> I'm a little worried that these warnings may appear from places we
> don't expect them. I can run the test on the autobuilder and see if
> other tests trigger this I guess, I wondered if you'd looked into that?
>

You're right, the better way might be adding an additional optional parameter ignore_error, so it won't break any existing behavior.

I'll quickly create a new patch and let you have a look.

> An alternative may be to set ignore_status=True but check the return
> code at a higher level and issue the warning there?
>
> Cheers,
> Richard


--
Mingde (Matthew) Zeng