From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96AD0C282DD for ; Thu, 23 May 2019 13:38:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BAEB20881 for ; Thu, 23 May 2019 13:38:45 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5BAEB20881 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36482 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hTnvg-00071q-L7 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 09:38:44 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36554) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hTnlY-0006xw-Mk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 09:28:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hTnlX-0000EF-Bc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 09:28:16 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46414) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hTnlX-0000D2-3l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 09:28:15 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41B15300194A; Thu, 23 May 2019 13:28:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09C5B67607; Thu, 23 May 2019 13:28:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.83.19]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE4B5B423; Thu, 23 May 2019 13:28:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 09:28:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Cleber Rosa To: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Message-ID: <1319868675.24353089.1558618080629.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <7a046f76-c892-a796-e7d0-b0eda92075d9@redhat.com> References: <20190520231910.12184-1-f4bug@amsat.org> <20190522211230.GA10764@habkost.net> <1711852617.24204010.1558561566547.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20190522230705.GB10764@habkost.net> <7a046f76-c892-a796-e7d0-b0eda92075d9@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.36.116.137, 10.4.195.24] Thread-Topic: mips: Add more Avocado tests Thread-Index: mkxBB8IsPIcjcTrJ60vGqLCcYiO5ng== X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.40]); Thu, 23 May 2019 13:28:09 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] mips: Add more Avocado tests X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Eduardo Habkost , Aleksandar Rikalo , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Aurelien Jarno , Aleksandar Markovic , Aleksandar Markovic Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9" > To: "Eduardo Habkost" , "Cleber Rosa" > Cc: "Aleksandar Rikalo" , "Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3= =A9" , "Wainer dos Santos > Moschetta" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Aleksandar Mark= ovic" , > "Aleksandar Markovic" , "Aurelien Jarno" > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 5:38:34 AM > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] mips: Add more Avocado tests >=20 > On 5/23/19 1:07 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 05:46:06PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Eduardo Habkost" > >>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 01:19:06AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9= wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> It was a rainy week-end here, so I invested it to automatize some > >>>> of my MIPS tests. > >>>> > >>>> The BootLinuxSshTest is not Global warming friendly, it is not > >>>> meant to run on a CI system but rather on a workstation previous > >>>> to post a pull request. > >>>> It can surely be improved, but it is a good starting point. > >>> > >>> Until we actually have a mechanism to exclude the test case on > >>> travis-ci, I will remove patch 4/4 from the queue. Aleksandar, > >>> please don't merge patch 4/4 yet or it will break travis-ci. > >>> > >>> Cleber, Wainer, is it already possible to make "avocado run" skip > >>> tests tagged with "slow"? > >>> > >> > >> The mechanism exists, but we haven't tagged any test so far as slow. > >> > >> Should we define/document a criteria for a test to be slow? Given > >> that this is highly subjective, we have to think of: > >> > >> * Will we consider the average or maximum run time (the timeout > >> definition)? > >> =20 > >> * For a single test, what is "slow"? Some rough numbers from Travis > >> CI[1] to help us with guidelines: > >> - boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_x86_64_pc: PASS (6.0= 4 s) > >> - boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_arm_virt: PASS (2.91= s) > >> - > >> linux_initrd.py:LinuxInitrd.test_with_2gib_file_should_work_with_li= nux_v4_16: > >> PASS (18.14 s) > >> - boot_linux.py:BootLinuxAarch64.test_virt: PASS (396.88 s) > >=20 > > I don't think we need to overthink this. Whatever objective > > criteria we choose, I'm sure we'll have to adapt them later due > > to real world problems. > >=20 > > e.g.: is 396 seconds too slow? I don't know, it depends: does it > > break Travis and other CI systems often because of timeouts? If > > yes, then we should probably tag it as slow. > >=20 > > If having subjective criteria is really a problem (I don't think > > it is), then we can call the tag "skip_travis", and stop worrying > > about defining what exactly is "slow". >=20 > I'd go with a simpler "tags:travis-ci" whitelisting any job expecting to > run smoothly there. >=20 My concern is what becomes of "make check-acceptance". Should we introduce another target, say, "make check-acceptance-ci" or just change its meaning and reuse it? > Then we can add "slow" tests without having to worry about blacklisting > for Travis CI. > Also, Other CI can set different timeouts. >=20 > I'd like maintainers to add as many tests as they want to upstream, so > these tests can eventually run by anyone, then each maintainer is free > to select which particular set he wants to run as default. >=20 OK, so this matches the idea of carefully curating a set of tests for CI. WRT white or blacklisting, I favor the approach that requires the least effort from the developer to have its test enabled, so I'd go with blacklisting. I fear that simple tests will just sit on the repo without being properly exercised if we need to whitelist them. But, I'll certainly and gladly accept the majority's opinion here. =20 Regards, - Cleber. > >> * Do we want to set a maximum job timeout? This way we can skip > >> tests after a given amount of time has passed. Currently we interr= upt > >> the test running when the job timeout is reached, but it's possible > >> to add a option so that no new tests will be started, but currently > >> running ones will be waited on. > >=20 > > I'm not sure I understand the suggestion to skip tests. If we > > skip tests after a timeout, how would we differentiate a test > > being expectedly slow from a QEMU hang? > >=20 >=20