On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Zach Pfeffer <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 5 June 2012 23:34, Alexander Sack <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Zach Pfeffer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 5 June 2012 18:23, Alexander Sack <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> I feel stopping and rebooting and continuing with the next test is > >>> what we want to aim for. > >>> > >>> On this front I wonder if we should directly go for rebooting for > >>> _all_ tests to ensure that every test gets executed the same runtime > >>> environment. > >>> > >>> Big benefit is obviously that tests can then stop services, change > >>> runtime state etc. as much as they like without bothering about > >>> bringing the system back into a clean state. > >>> > >>> Would that be hard? Why wouldn't we do this? > >> > >> Seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice it may cause testing > >> to take a long time. Plus, what constitutes a test boundary? I think > > > > I don't think this would really extend the testing time much. Majority > > of time is usually spend in flashing the image. The booting and > > running should be not of a big time sink; the little bit we loose we > > get back from keeping the suite running "isolated". > > > >> if we do the fail then restart then we get the best of both worlds, > >> we're able to run multiple tests and restart if we get the system into > >> a really weird state. > > > > I would think "one suite" is a good test boundary (basically the names > > you currently put in TEST_PLAN). > > Sure. I actually okay with this. > > If we do this though, we may want to change things so that each test > is a tuple with a test name and a timeout for that test. > > The test timeout has always been a supported parameter.
_______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
