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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 8B0B8C282E3 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 19:48:49 +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 5402D206BA for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 19:48:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5402D206BA 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]:59402 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUGBM-0007pj-KT for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 15:48:48 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50983) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUGAW-0007W7-0t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 15:47:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUGAU-0007ns-3g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 15:47:55 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55794) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hUGAS-0007kk-6O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 May 2019 15:47:53 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC806C056899; Fri, 24 May 2019 19:47:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-116-14.gru2.redhat.com [10.97.116.14]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A606F19C6A; Fri, 24 May 2019 19:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 16:47:34 -0300 From: Eduardo Habkost To: Aleksandar Markovic Message-ID: <20190524194734.GO10764@habkost.net> 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> <1319868675.24353089.1558618080629.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20190523213031.GE10764@habkost.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Fri, 24 May 2019 19:47:45 +0000 (UTC) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Aleksandar Rikalo , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Aleksandar Markovic , Cleber Rosa , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Aurelien Jarno Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 03:45:56PM +0200, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > On May 23, 2019 11:31 PM, "Eduardo Habkost" wrote= : > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 09:28:00AM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote: > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Philippe Mathieu-Daud=E9" > > > > To: "Eduardo Habkost" , "Cleber Rosa" < > crosa@redhat.com> > > > > Cc: "Aleksandar Rikalo" , "Philippe > Mathieu-Daud=E9" , "Wainer dos Santos > > > > Moschetta" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Aleksan= dar > Markovic" , > > > > "Aleksandar Markovic" , "Aurelien Jarno" = < > aurelien@aurel32.net> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 5:38:34 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] mips: Add more Avocado test= s > > > > > > > > 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-Da= ud=E9 > 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 n= ot > > > > >>>> meant to run on a CI system but rather on a workstation prev= ious > > > > >>>> 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 o= n > > > > >>> travis-ci, I will remove patch 4/4 from the queue. Aleksanda= r, > > > > >>> 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? G= iven > > > > >> that this is highly subjective, we have to think of: > > > > >> > > > > >> * Will we consider the average or maximum run time (the timeo= ut > > > > >> definition)? > > > > >> > > > > >> * 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: P= ASS > (6.04 s) > > > > >> - boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_arm_virt: PA= SS > (2.91 s) > > > > >> - > > > > >> > linux_initrd.py:LinuxInitrd.test_with_2gib_file_should_work_with_linux_= v4_16: > > > > >> PASS (18.14 s) > > > > >> - boot_linux.py:BootLinuxAarch64.test_virt: PASS (396.88 s= ) > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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? I= f > > > > > yes, then we should probably tag it as slow. > > > > > > > > > > If having subjective criteria is really a problem (I don't thin= k > > > > > it is), then we can call the tag "skip_travis", and stop worryi= ng > > > > > about defining what exactly is "slow". > > > > > > > > I'd go with a simpler "tags:travis-ci" whitelisting any job expec= ting > to > > > > run smoothly there. > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > What about "make check-acceptance TAG=3Dtravis-ci"? > > > > > > > > > Then we can add "slow" tests without having to worry about > blacklisting > > > > for Travis CI. > > > > Also, Other CI can set different timeouts. > > > > > > > > I'd like maintainers to add as many tests as they want to upstrea= m, so > > > > these tests can eventually run by anyone, then each maintainer is= free > > > > to select which particular set he wants to run as default. > > > > > > > > > > OK, so this matches the idea of carefully curating a set of tests f= or > > > 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 r= epo > > > without being properly exercised if we need to whitelist them. > > > > > > > I agree. I'd prefer the default case to be simple and not > > require extra tags. (i.e. tests without any tags would be run in > > Travis by default). > > >=20 > Eduardo, >=20 > You are confusing me here. >=20 > You first suggest: >=20 > > What about "make check-acceptance TAG=3Dtravis-ci"? >=20 I was just trying to suggest using make variables as input to check-acceptance, instead of creating separate makefile rules for each set of test cases. But you are right: > ... and then say: >=20 > > ...tests without any tags would be run in Travis by default. >=20 > For casual observers like me it is contradictory, I must be missing > something here, no? Yes, if we use tags to exclude tests, the command line would look different. Maybe something like: make check-acceptance EXCLUDE_TAGS=3Dskip-travis The exact format of the arguments don't matter to me, as long as we don't require people to write new makefile rules just because they want to run a different set of test cases. --=20 Eduardo