Hi Jason,

Thanks for doing this. I haven't had a chance to look at the code in details 
myself, but from what I have seen it looks like a real improvement. Ideally, 
I'd like someone from our side (probably Giacomo T) to have a look at it. 
However, Giacomo is currently travelling and I have other pressing matters to 
tend to. :(

I have had a quick look at the code and it all looks reasonable. There are 
three things we need for CI integration:

 1.  Ability to separate build and test.
 2.  Ability to schedule individual (long-running) tests separately in a 
cluster environment.
 3.  Ability to get a JUnit XML file with per-test results.

With the potential exception of 2, I think the new framework supports all of 
the above. We could, maybe, use the support for distributed test using the test 
server in the framework, but I'm a bit reluctant to deploy it for two reasons. 
1) It requires credentials to be hard-coded. It would be much more convenient 
to use an auto-generated authentication file (with suitable permissions) in a 
shared file location. 2) Having a custom server is potentially very unreliable 
since the network tends to be noisy (e.g., port scanners, IDS software). The 
static allocation of a port will also be troublesome (e.g., when two servers 
run on the same node).

In the current framework, we typically list the available tests and then create 
one cluster job per test. Once the tests complete, the CI framework aggregates 
all of the JUnit files (it also stores the pickle files for debugging) and 
generates a report. I'd like to be able to do something with the new framework. 
Is that possible?

Cheers,
Andreas

On 05/07/2018 21:22, Jason Lowe-Power wrote:

Hi all,

I'm hoping that we can finalize the new testing framework, and I can push
it in within the next week or so. All of the important changes have at
least one +2, but I want to give everyone one last chance to object or
suggest changes. I've been talking to Sean, and while there's more that
could be cleaned up in ext/testlib, we think it's good as it is. At a
minimum, this will give us a starting point. I'd like to get this in soon
so I can start adding more tests to it in the coming weeks.

The patches are linked below:

https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/4880/7
https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/4881/7
https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/4421/12
https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/4882/13
https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/4883/13
https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/4422/13
https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/4423/13
https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/10121/4

Thanks,
Jason
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to