Re: [ovirt-devel] local vdsm build fails

From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <piotr.kliczewski(a)gmail.com&gt;, fsimonce(a)redhat.com, dcaro(a)redhat.com, devel(a)ovirt.org, "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:48:54 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] local vdsm build fails On Thu 12 Jun 2014 12:47:11 PM CEST, Nir Soffer wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <piotr.kliczewski(a)gmail.com&gt;, fsimonce(a)redhat.com, >> dcaro(a)redhat.com, devel(a)ovirt.org, "Dan >> Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:24:39 PM >> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] local vdsm build fails >> >> On Sun 08 Jun 2014 12:57:24 PM CEST, Nir Soffer wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <piotr.kliczewski(a)gmail.com&gt;, >>>> fsimonce(a)redhat.com, >>>> dcaro(a)redhat.com, devel(a)ovirt.org, "Dan >>>> Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 5:16:52 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] local vdsm build fails >>>> >>>> On Fri 06 Jun 2014 03:53:41 PM CEST, Nir Soffer wrote: >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> To: "Piotr Kliczewski" <piotr.kliczewski(a)gmail.com&gt;, >>>>>> fsimonce(a)redhat.com, >>>>>> nsoffer(a)redhat.com, dcaro(a)redhat.com >>>>>> Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org >>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:15:18 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] local vdsm build fails >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 09:19:11AM +0200, Piotr Kliczewski wrote: >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I pulled the latest vdsm from master and noticed that build is >>>>>>> failing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is the patch that causes the failuer: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/28226 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and looking at jenkins comments I can see that jenkins was failing >>>>>>> with the same reason: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://jenkins.ovirt.org/job/vdsm_master_storage_functional_tests_localfs... >>>>> >>>>> Nir has already fix that as well. The storage tests were just fine, but >>>>> a post build script was running cp incorrectly. >>>>> >>>>> David pointed that we need a way to distinguish between test errors and >>>>> failures. >>>>> He suggested looking up strings in the test output - we should not go >>>>> there, unless >>>>> we want to "fix" this many more times in the future. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest to use the these rules: >>>>> >>>>> - SUCCESS - make check returns 0 >>>>> - FAILURE - make check returns 1 >>>>> - ERROR - anything else returned by make check or any other script. >>>>> >>>>> I think that make check does work like this, but it should be easy to >>>>> change. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your report. Nir has already fixed this in >>>>>> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/28426. >>>>>> >>>>>> It was introduced in http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/28226/ but missed >>>>>> also >>>>>> because we have turned PYFLAKES off in unit test jobs. We must turn it >>>>>> on >>>>>> in >>>>>> at least one of the tests (or initiate a new jenkins job for `make >>>>>> check-local`). >>>>>> >>>>>> As a quick fix, David has re-enabled PYFLAKES in >>>>>> http://jenkins.ovirt.org/view/By%20Project/view/vdsm/job/vdsm_master_unit... >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Dan. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Perfect for me, but you should know that it will fail also when strange >>>> things occur, for example, out of memory, of disk space, slave >>>> disconnected, network error, etc. >>>> >>>> If you are willing to treat those (the most common infra failures) as >>>> devel failures, then no problem on my side, >>> >>> I'm not - this is why we should separate test failures from test errors. >>> >>>> but I don't want you to >>>> start ignoring test errors because it's most probably an infra error >>>> (don't get me wrong, it's totally normal to start ignoring an alarm >>>> that is not a real problem, as infra members we will try to minimize >>>> the infra issues, but it's not yet as stable as we'd like it to be). >>> >>> This is too late now, people are already ignoring jenkins reports because >>> of the many false negatives :-) >> >> So the return code is not a good solution then, we have to see if it >> failed, and if it was due to an infra error or a devel error. I think >> that it's easier to filter for: >> >> * A string that means the tests did ran, probably at the end of the log >> so if there's a connection failure it will be detected as infra issue. >> * A string that identified if the test failed or passed >> >> And if none of those were found, then an infra failure is supposed. > > Ok, how about: > > 1. make check will write a file with test results - no other output > can go into that file so we don't have to use heuristics when > parsing the file. > > 2. If the file is found and parse successfully, tests either succeeded or > failed. What does 'parse successfully' mean?

> > 3. Any other failure is a test error - failure is *never* assumed You mean an infra issue?