Josh and all, an other or complementary idea is to use MTT from jenkins and with the junit plugin. iirc, the python client can generate a junit xml report, and fwiw, i made a simplistic proof of concept in the perl client. the idea is the junit jenkins plugins display a summary of all tests (ok, ko, skip) but also provides some tendencies (e.g. things are going better or worst)
if we only want to use the junit plugin, an option is to have a "dummy" jenkins job that query results or download xml reports from the mtt server, so the results and tendencies can be displayed by jenkins Cheers, Gilles On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Josh Hursey <jjhur...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > In the Open MPI face-to-face meeting we had a long discussion about how to > better harness MTT such that new failures are identified and the community > alerted to their existence. The current manual way is not working. Our > ultimate goal here is to know if we are making forward progress, and if > something new fails the community knows about it immediately and > automatically. > > We had a bunch of discussion and decided to think it over some more then > come back to a teleconf in the next week or two to make a plan. The MTT > group is scheduled to meet on Thursday, July 20 at 4 pm EST. We already know > that doesn't work for everyone interested so I setup a doodle poll to pick a > time for this specific discussion. > > https://doodle.com/poll/8zdetnnv4iaaawg4 > > Please fill out the doodle poll by Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 5 pm EST. I'll > pick a time then. > > > > Three topics were identified to make progress. > 1. Move MTT (Perl) Client to new server submission interface > 2. Adding an "expected fail" list to MTT Client. > 3. Drive the number of MTT reported failures to 0 > > (1) This will start the movement to the new RESTful MTT server. Eventually > we want to disable the old PHP submission mechanism. This is a first step. > Josh needs to re-test this interface to confirm it is still working as > expected with the existing 'v3' database. > > (2) For each branch/test-suite/runtime-configuration identify a test run as > "known to fail". These will be flagged in the MTT Database and MTT > Viewer/Reporter as separate from other failures ("failed, but we expected to > pass"). Is this part of the INI file or a separate 'thing'? > > (3) The idea is that the "failed, but we expected to pass" number should be > 0 for all sites. The individual site is responsible for maintaining their > "known to fail" list. If the "failed, but we expected to pass" number is >0 > then this is a 'new failure' and an email to the community is generated. > > > -- > Josh Hursey > IBM Spectrum MPI Developer > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@lists.open-mpi.org > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
