On 6 Sep 2018, at 10:56, Aaron Conole wrote:
As of June, the 0-day robot has tested over 450 patch series.
Occasionally it spams the list (apologies for that), but for the
majority of the time it has caught issues before they made it to the
tree - so it's accomplishing the initial goal just fine.
I see lots of ways it can improve. Currently, the bot runs on a light
system. It takes ~20 minutes to complete a set of tests, including
all
the checkpatch and rebuild runs. That's not a big issue. BUT, it
does
mean that the machine isn't able to perform all the kinds of
regression
tests that we would want. I want to improve this in a way that
various
contributors can bring their own hardware and regression tests to the
party. In that way, various projects can detect potential issues
before
they would ever land on the tree and it could flag functional changes
earlier in the process.
I'm not sure the best way to do that. One thing I'll be doing is
updating the bot to push a series that successfully builds and passes
checkpatch to a special branch on a github repository to kick off
travis
builds. That will give us a more complete regression coverage, and we
could be confident that a series won't break something major. After
that, I'm not sure how to notify various alternate test
infrastructures
how to kick off their own tests using the patched sources.
My goal is to get really early feedback on patch series. I've sent
this
out to the folks I know are involved in testing and test discussions
in
the hopes that we can talk about how best to get more CI happening.
The
open questions:
1. How can we notify various downstream consumers of OvS of these
0-day builds? Should we just rely on people rolling their own?
Should there be a more formalized framework? How will these other
test frameworks report any kind of failures?
2. What kinds of additional testing do we want to see the robot
include?
First of all thanks for the 0-day robot, I really like the idea…
One thing I feel would really benefit is some basic performance testing,
like a PVP test for the kernel/dpdk datapath. This will help easily
identifying performance impacting patches as they happen… Rather than
people figuring out after a release why their performance has dropped.
Should the test results be made available in general on some kind
of
public facing site? Should it just stay as a "bleep bloop -
failure!" marker?
3. What other concerns should be addressed?
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
