On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:13:08PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 11:47, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:36:32AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 13:03, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4/20/20 8:45 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 12:23, Heinrich Schuchardt > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> On 4/20/20 1:38 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > >>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 06:09, Heinrich Schuchardt > > > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> By passing -ra to pytest we get a summary indicating which tests > > > > >>>> failed > > > > >>>> and why tests were skipped. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Here is an example output: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> ======================== short test summary info > > > > >>>> ========================= > > > > >>>> SKIPPED [1] test/py/tests/test_efi_loader.py:81: No DHCP server > > > > >>>> available > > > > >>>> SKIPPED [1] test/py/tests/test_efi_loader.py:100: No static network > > > > >>>> configuration is defined > > > > >>>> SKIPPED [2] test/py/tests/test_efi_loader.py:115: Network not > > > > >>>> initialized > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> > > > > >>>> --- > > > > >>>> test/run | 6 +++--- > > > > >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> This is really noisy - I get lots of extra output. Can we make this > > > > >>> an option? > > > > >> > > > > >> When I run 'make tests' I get 41 out of 199 lines explaining skipped > > > > >> and failed tests. > > > > >> > > > > >> Lines like these are noise because there is no actionable > > > > >> information: > > > > >> > > > > >> test/py/tests/test_fs/test_basic.py > > > > >> sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss [ 0%] > > > > >> test/py/tests/test_fs/test_ext.py ssssssssssssssssssssss [ 0%] > > > > >> test/py/tests/test_fs/test_mkdir.py ssssssssssss [ 0%] > > > > >> test/py/tests/test_fs/test_symlink.py ssss [ 0%] > > > > >> test/py/tests/test_fs/test_unlink.py ssssssssssssss [ 0%] > > > > >> > > > > >> This new line has actionable information: > > > > >> > > > > >> SKIPPED [13] test/py/tests/test_fs/conftest.py:340: Setup failed for > > > > >> filesystem: fat16 > > > > >> > > > > >> Next step is to change this line to provide a more useful output, > > > > >> e.g. > > > > >> > > > > >> - except CalledProcessError: > > > > >> - pytest.skip('Setup failed for filesystem: ' + fs_type) > > > > >> + except CalledProcessError as err: > > > > >> + pytest.skip('Setup failed for filesystem: ' + fs_type + \ > > > > >> + ', {}'.format(err)) > > > > >> > > > > >> SKIPPED [13] test/py/tests/test_fs/conftest.py:340: Setup failed for > > > > >> filesystem: fat16, Command 'mkfs.vfat -F 16 > > > > >> build-sandbox/persistent-data/3GB.fat16.img' returned non-zero exit > > > > >> status 127. > > > > >> > > > > >> Now we know that that the test is wrong by assuming that mkfs.vfat > > > > >> is in > > > > >> the path instead of using /usr/sbin/mkfs.vfat or /sbin/mkfs.vfat and > > > > >> we > > > > >> can fix it. > > > > >> > > > > >> We should get rid of all skipped tests especially on Travis CI and > > > > >> Gitlab CI. Further we should provide instructions to set up a local > > > > >> system to avoid skipping tests. > > > > >> > > > > >> Simon, why do you want to remove the actionable information? > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to remove it. It isn't there now! > > > > > > > > > > Let's fix it before we enable it. Otherwise it is just noise. The > > > > > device tree fiasco is a real pain. > > > > > > > > > > BTW the fs tests are flaky for me so I seldom run them. > > > > > > > > What do you mean by flaky? > > > > > > > > Do you mean unreliable (cf. > > > > https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flaky)? > > > > > > Yes! > > > > > > > > > > > What is unreliable about the tests? > > > > > > You have it above - the filesystem tests sometimes fail for me. > > > > I think I've seen some of the FAT tests historically, but not recently. > > The biggest problem I see with them is that they are skipped or run for > > seemingly random reasons, under gitlab. And the root patch here would > > help to see why. For example: > > https://gitlab.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/jobs/80886 skips them but > > https://gitlab.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/jobs/80850 runs them. May be a > > runner config problem? > > Oh gosh that is odd. > > > > > > I think all the other tests are good, although I think there is one > > > that has a time delay in it that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > Also we should really run the tests concurrently like binman does (see > > > tools/concurrencytest). > > > > I'm not sure how we could run most tests concurrently and keep things > > generic. We can spawn N sandbox binaries but only one physical board. > > Yes this is only for sandbox. It is pretty easy to turn on when it is allowed. > > The current code in binman does this: > > use_concurrent = True > try: > from concurrencytest import ConcurrentTestSuite, fork_for_tests > except: > use_concurrent = False > > > then: > > if use_concurrent and processes != 1: > concurrent_suite = ConcurrentTestSuite(suite, > fork_for_tests(processes or multiprocessing.cpu_count())) > concurrent_suite.run(result) > else: > suite.run(result)
Right, OK. But have you proof-of-concepted that around pytest? Rewrite all of our tests in a different python framework seems like a big ask. I can see it being useful if a big part of the bottleneck is running check/qcheck in your own dev cycle. I personally don't try and concurrent my HW tests even if I could for everything-not-Pi. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
