10:06 a.m.
After running:
./run_suite.sh --cleanup basic_suite_3.6
./run_suite.sh basic_suite_3.6
The tests failed at [1]
Does it mean the cleanup stage failed? why would log collection fail
on a duplicate file?
I think it will be beneficial to support multiple logs and rotate it like
we do in ovirt for e.g,
Since a developer might run a few times without cleanning up the env.
Do we have an open issue for it? , cause I didn't find anything similar.
[1].
@ Collect artifacts: ERROR (in 0:00:00)
Error occured, aborting
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ovirtlago/cmd.py", line 248, in
do_run
self.cli_plugins[args.ovirtverb].do_run(args)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lago/plugins/cli.py", line 180, in
do_run
self._do_run(**vars(args))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lago/utils.py", line 501, in
wrapper
return func(*args, **kwargs)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lago/utils.py", line 512, in
wrapper
return func(*args, prefix=prefix, **kwargs)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ovirtlago/cmd.py", line 217, in
do_ovirt_collect
prefix.collect_artifacts(output)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lago/log_utils.py", line 598, in
wrapper
return func(*args, **kwargs)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/lago/prefix.py", line 928, in
collect_artifacts
os.makedirs(output_dir)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/os.py", line 157, in makedirs
mkdir(name, mode)
OSError: [Errno 17] File exists:
'/home/eedri/lago/ovirt-system-tests/test_logs/basic_suite_3.6/post-001_initialize_engine.py'
--
Eyal Edri
Associate Manager
RHEV DevOps
EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Red Hat Israel
phone: +972-9-7692018
irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
12:52 p.m.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri(a)redhat.com> wrote:
test_logs/
This is an annoying change of behavior. In the past, I believe the logs
were under the deployment dir. Now, they are here. It requires cleaning
them manually every time.
It's part of issues we'll have to fix if we want (and I believe we do)
support multiple execution.
I consider it as a regression in a way, since it's a changed behavior - and
I'm not sure for the better.
Y.
2:55 a.m.
I agree.
I saw [1], but its attached to an abandoned patch in gerrit with no pull
request to replace it.
[1] https://github.com/lago-project/lago/issues/11
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> test_logs/
This is an annoying change of behavior. In the past, I believe the logs
were under the deployment dir. Now, they are here. It requires cleaning
them manually every time.
It's part of issues we'll have to fix if we want (and I believe we do)
support multiple execution.
I consider it as a regression in a way, since it's a changed behavior -
and I'm not sure for the better.
Y.
--
Eyal Edri
Associate Manager
RHEV DevOps
EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Red Hat Israel
phone: +972-9-7692018
irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
5:05 a.m.
On 04/10 20:52, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> test_logs/
This is an annoying change of behavior. In the past, I believe the logs
were under the deployment dir. Now, they are here. It requires cleaning
them manually every time.
Before it also required manual cleanup every time, it just turned out, that
while doing the manual cleanup of the prefix (with ./run_suite -c) the logs
were removed too (that was also an issue on jenkins, as you had to extract the
logs before the cleanup)
It's part of issues we'll have to fix if we want (and I
believe we do)
support multiple execution.
It supports multiple execution as long as you are not running the same suite,
same as before, the issue here is that you are using a very specific flow that
is not used anywhere else, and thus, facing issues and user cases that noone
else has.
I really recommend:
* Moving to the same flow jenkins uses
* Moving jenkins to the same flow you use
I consider it as a regression in a way, since it's a changed
behavior - and
I'm not sure for the better.
It changed behavior yes, and it improved the log collection and cleanup
procedures on jenkins.
To alleviate that issue, I sent a patch for that in the beginning of the lago
project that was never merged, feel free to open a task for that too, should be
relatively easy to implement some kind of log rotation if the destination
directory already exists.
Y.
_______________________________________________
lago-devel mailing list
lago-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/lago-devel
--
David Caro
Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
5:35 a.m.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:05 PM, David Caro <dcaro(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 04/10 20:52, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > test_logs/
>
>
> This is an annoying change of behavior. In the past, I believe the logs
> were under the deployment dir. Now, they are here. It requires cleaning
> them manually every time.
Before it also required manual cleanup every time, it just turned out, that
while doing the manual cleanup of the prefix (with ./run_suite -c) the logs
were removed too (that was also an issue on jenkins, as you had to extract
the
logs before the cleanup)
1. Makes sense to me that you'll extract the logs before cleanup.
2. It did not cause a re-run to fail, which now, unless you cleanup AND rm
the files, it will.
> It's part of issues we'll have to fix if we want (and I believe we do)
> support multiple execution.
Yep.
It supports multiple execution as long as you are not running the same
suite,
same as before, the issue here is that you are using a very specific flow
that
is not used anywhere else, and thus, facing issues and user cases that
noone
else has.
I really recommend:
* Moving to the same flow jenkins uses
* Moving jenkins to the same flow you use
I'm running ./run_suite.sh -o /home/zram/3.6 basic_suite_3.6
and cleanup:
lagocli --prefix-path /home/zram/3.6/current cleanup
over and over and over and over...
What should I be running?
Y.
> I consider it as a regression in a way, since it's a changed
behavior -
and
> I'm not sure for the better.
It changed behavior yes, and it improved the log collection and cleanup
procedures on jenkins.
To alleviate that issue, I sent a patch for that in the beginning of the
lago
project that was never merged, feel free to open a task for that too,
should be
relatively easy to implement some kind of log rotation if the destination
directory already exists.
> Y.
> _______________________________________________
> lago-devel mailing list
> lago-devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/lago-devel
--
David Caro
Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
6:02 a.m.
On 04/13 13:35, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:05 PM, David Caro <dcaro(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On 04/10 20:52, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > test_logs/
> >
> >
> > This is an annoying change of behavior. In the past, I believe the logs
> > were under the deployment dir. Now, they are here. It requires cleaning
> > them manually every time.
>
> Before it also required manual cleanup every time, it just turned out, that
> while doing the manual cleanup of the prefix (with ./run_suite -c) the logs
> were removed too (that was also an issue on jenkins, as you had to extract
> the
> logs before the cleanup)
>
1. Makes sense to me that you'll extract the logs before cleanup.
The collect command is the one extracting the logs, what we did before is
extract them, into the same prefix (that's what I think it's wrong, the prefix
is one thing, and the artifacts you collect are another)
2. It did not cause a re-run to fail, which now, unless you cleanup
AND rm
the files, it will.
>
> > It's part of issues we'll have to fix if we want (and I believe we do)
> > support multiple execution.
>
Yep.
>
> It supports multiple execution as long as you are not running the same
> suite,
> same as before, the issue here is that you are using a very specific flow
> that
> is not used anywhere else, and thus, facing issues and user cases that
> noone
> else has.
> I really recommend:
> * Moving to the same flow jenkins uses
> * Moving jenkins to the same flow you use
>
I'm running ./run_suite.sh -o /home/zram/3.6 basic_suite_3.6
and cleanup:
lagocli --prefix-path /home/zram/3.6/current cleanup
over and over and over and over...
What should I be running?
rm -rf test_logs
./run_suite.sh basic_suite_3.6
./run_suite.sh --cleanup basic_suite_3.6
That's the jenkins flow more or less, you could even run something closer by
using:
mock_runner.sh --execute-script automation/basic_suite_3.6.sh fc22
That is quite closer to what jenkins runs, that already takes care of the
test_logs directory, moving it to exported-artifacts (where jenkins archives
it) and removing it if it exists.
Though you will not have any caching and zram execution (just as the jenkins
slaves don't have it).
> > I consider it as a regression in a way, since it's a changed behavior -
> and
> > I'm not sure for the better.
>
> It changed behavior yes, and it improved the log collection and cleanup
> procedures on jenkins.
> To alleviate that issue, I sent a patch for that in the beginning of the
> lago
> project that was never merged, feel free to open a task for that too,
> should be
> relatively easy to implement some kind of log rotation if the destination
> directory already exists.
>
> > Y.
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > lago-devel mailing list
> > lago-devel(a)ovirt.org
> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/lago-devel
>
>
> --
> David Caro
>
> Red Hat S.L.
> Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
>
> Tel.: +420 532 294 605
> Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
> IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
> Web: www.redhat.com
> RHT Global #: 82-62605
>
--
David Caro
Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
7:01 a.m.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:02 PM, David Caro <dcaro(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Though you will not have any caching and zram execution (just as the
jenkins
slaves don't have it).
That should change. The sooner the better.
If they have enough ram, they can actually run in /dev/shm/something.
That's what I'm doing with the VDSM functional tests.
Y.
7:06 a.m.
On 04/13 15:01, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:02 PM, David Caro <dcaro(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Though you will not have any caching and zram execution (just as the
> jenkins
> slaves don't have it).
>
That should change. The sooner the better.
So as I said, there's an usync between what you do and everyone else, it should
be synced, either one side or the other, in any case, please open a task and
prioritize properly, if it only affects the test scripts (like running on ram)
then to bugzilla, if it affects lago, then github.
If they have enough ram, they can actually run in /dev/shm/something.
That's what I'm doing with the VDSM functional tests.
Y.
--
David Caro
Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
2933
days inactive
2936
days old
7 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
David Caro -
Eyal Edri -
Yaniv Kaul