On Thu, 2024-06-27 at 12:34 +0000, Ross Burton wrote: > On 27 Jun 2024, at 13:02, Richard Purdie > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2024-06-26 at 10:41 +0100, Peter Hoyes via > > lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > > It does not always make sense to collect artifacts and data from > > > the > > > target on failure, e.g. if testing firmware or if the target is > > > not > > > running an SSH server. > > > > > > Introduce the variable TESTIMAGE_RUN_FAILURE_POST_ACTIONS, which > > > defaults to "1". If this variable is not true, skip the failed > > > test post > > > actions. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Hoyes <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > meta/classes-recipe/testimage.bbclass | 10 ++++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > Is there a reason you can't just set TESTIMAGE_FAILED_QA ARTIFACTS > > = "” > > ? > > Answering for Peter because I asked the same question: the next step > after list_and_fetch_failed_tests_artifacts() is > get_target_disk_usage() which does a target.run() so causes a SSH > call.
Rather than call this RUN_FAILURE_POST_ACTIONS could we have something like TESTIMAGE_SSH_AVAILABLE and then test against that in the appropriate places? Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#201204): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/201204 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/106886598/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
