Looking at the test and the output, its expecting /dev/sda3 to be mounted as /media and /dev/sda4 to be mounted as /mnt. With this test result, there is no /media, and instead /dev/sda3 is mounted to /mnt.

That seems odd to me unless that partition either wasn't created or went entirely undetected.

I'll take a closer look, I think there's more going on here.

---
Cal

On 02/05/2018 03:34 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
This is causing the qemu boot wic test to fail in oe-selftest:

2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - FAIL [64.639s]: test_qemu (wic.Wic) 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2018-02-05 15:08:41,786 - oe-selftest - INFO - Traceback (most recent call last):   File "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/core/decorator/__init__.py", line 32, in wrapped_f
    return func(*args, **kwargs)
  File "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py", line 58, in wrapped_f
    return func(*args, **kwargs)
  File "/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-oe-selftest/build/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/wic.py", line 637, in test_qemu     self.assertEqual(output, '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt') AssertionError: '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /media\r\n/dev/sda4 /mnt' != '/dev/root /\r\n/dev/sda1 /boot\r\n/dev/sda3 /mnt'
  /dev/root /
  /dev/sda1 /boot
- /dev/sda3 /media
- /dev/sda4 /mnt?         ^
+ /dev/sda3 /mnt?         ^

Presumably this is the initramfs mounting more stuff automatically?  I don't have an opinion right now as to whether this is a problem with the initramfs or the test case being too strict...

Ross


On 1 February 2018 at 14:03, Burton, Ross <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Sorry, missed this.  I'll pull it into MUT and throw it at the
    autobuilder...

    Ross

    On 31 January 2018 at 22:53, Cal Sullivan
    <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

        Ping.

        ---
        Cal


        On 01/09/2018 05:00 PM, Cal Sullivan wrote:

            Anything wrong with this? Haven't seen it hit any mut
            branches.

            Thanks,
            Cal

            On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, California Sullivan wrote:

                initramfs-framework is more modular and expandable.
                This change was
                proposed in commit
                28fc6ba761ed4a47efa7c43e7f7dff5e2fe72b5e
                "core-image-minimal-initramfs: use initramfs-framework
                by default" but
                reverted due to the selftests
                runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_machine_iso
                and runqemu.RunqemuTests.test_boot_deploy_hddimg
                failing. Since then,
                the kinks have been worked out, and missing
                functionality that had been
                missed (non-EFI installation module) has been added.

                Since the PACKAGE_INSTALL variable was getting so long
                with all these
                individual modules getting added, I also introduced a new
                INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS variable to the
                core-image-minimal-initramfs recipe.
                This variable makes the recipe look much cleaner, and
                also allows easier
                replacement or additions to the scripts.

                Fixes [YOCTO #10987].

                Signed-off-by: California Sullivan
                <[email protected]
                <mailto:[email protected]>>
                ---
                 
                meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
                <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb> | 10 +++++++++-
                  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

                diff --git
                a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
                <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
                b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
                <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
                index 5794a25952a..a9ba91bd310 100644
                ---
                a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
                <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
                +++
                b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
                <http://core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb>
                @@ -3,7 +3,15 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Small image capable of
                booting a device. The kernel includes \
                  the Minimal RAM-based Initial Root Filesystem
                (initramfs), which finds the \
                  first 'init' program more efficiently."
                  -PACKAGE_INSTALL = "initramfs-live-boot
                initramfs-live-install initramfs-live-install-efi
                ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
                ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
                +INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS ?= "\
                + initramfs-framework-base \
                + initramfs-module-setup-live \
                + initramfs-module-udev \
                + initramfs-module-install \
                + initramfs-module-install-efi \
                +                     "
                +
                +PACKAGE_INSTALL = "${INITRAMFS_SCRIPTS}
                ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} udev base-passwd
                ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}"
                    # Do not pollute the initrd image with rootfs features
                  IMAGE_FEATURES = ""



-- _______________________________________________
        Openembedded-core mailing list
        [email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>
        http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
        <http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core>




-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Reply via email to