Hello Eric,

I am happy to see you are also working on this. We already have 2 features that 
should be implemented in 1.7 related to this that should help along with 
integrating ptest with automated tests. These features use the current 
‘testimage’ framework that runs runtime tests on both QEMU and hardware 
targets. More information can be found in the Yocto manual and some Yocto wiki 
pages:
http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/mega-manual/mega-manual.html#performing-automated-runtime-testing
https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Image_tests
https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Test-remote-image

Here are the feature requests themselves:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6335
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4114

The parsing of the log files is an important part of this integration and maybe 
we can work together on this! ☺ I myself just started to work on these features 
for the 1.7 M3 milestone and came across your email while digging the 
opemembedded mailing list for a starting point.

Regards,
Corneliu
Yocto QA


From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Yu
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 7:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Alejandro del Castillo; Bill Pittman
Subject: [OE-core] ptest formatting

Hello,
       My name is Eric Yu, and I am an intern at National Instruments for this 
summer. The project I am currently working on involves integrating ptest with 
our current automated testing framework to help test our open-embedded 
distributions. On the Yocto Project wiki, it states that one major point of 
ptest is to consolidate the output of different package tests in a common 
“<result>: <testname>” format. I was hoping that this common format would allow 
ptest results to be easily machine parsed and integrated with our current 
testing framework. However, after enabling and running the ptests, I discovered 
that the formatting of the results was not as friendly to automation as I had 
hoped.

 It appears that each separate package prints out its own errors, warnings, and 
other output along with these test results, burying the common output in lots 
of other text. Also, one package (gdk-pixbuff) used “FAILED” when reporting 
results rather than the expected “FAIL”.

In the bash ptests, several tests print warnings saying to ignore failures 
where the output differs only by whitespace. This seems to be bad practice for 
test writing and is not friendly to automated analysis of test results.

At the conclusion of each ptest, some packages give a summary of how many tests 
were passed, skipped, and failed, while others do not. I find that having these 
summaries gives a useful overview of how the test went overall and is a good 
reference in case some tests fail to produce the common  “<result>: <testname>” 
output.

I understand that much of this is due to the fact that separate developers 
write the tests for different packages, but it would be beneficial if ptest was 
friendlier to automated parsing and analysis of test results. Currently, I have 
addressed some of these obstacles by writing a simple script that parses the 
output of each ptest and only outputs only the “<result>: <testname>”  results 
while accounting for both “FAIL” and “FAILED”. The script keeps a running count 
of how many tests were reported as failed, skipped or passed, and at the 
conclusion of each ptest, the script prints a summary including the number of 
tests passed, skipped, and failed along with a total number of tests run. While 
this works with the current set of ptests, as more and more packages add ptest 
functionality, this script may not scale well if more inconsistencies in 
formatting are introduced. Therefore, I believe it would be a good idea to 
enforce a more consistent formatting of ptest results to assist in the use of 
ptest for automated testing. Are there any plans to further consolidate the 
ptest result format such that it is more accessible for automated testing?
-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Reply via email to