[ovirt-devel] local vdsm build fails

[David Caro]

On Thu 12 Jun 2014 12:47:11 PM CEST, Nir Soffer wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest at redhat.com>
>> To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer at redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <piotr.kliczewski at gmail.com>, fsimonce at redhat.com, dcaro at redhat.com, devel at ovirt.org, "Dan
>> Kenigsberg" <danken at redhat.com>
>> 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 at redhat.com>
>>>> To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer at redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: "Piotr Kliczewski" <piotr.kliczewski at gmail.com>, fsimonce at redhat.com,
>>>> dcaro at redhat.com, devel at ovirt.org, "Dan
>>>> Kenigsberg" <danken at redhat.com>
>>>> 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>>> To: "Piotr Kliczewski" <piotr.kliczewski at gmail.com>,
>>>>>> fsimonce at redhat.com,
>>>>>> nsoffer at redhat.com, dcaro at redhat.com
>>>>>> Cc: devel at 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_gerrit/1064/console
>>>>>
>>>>> 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_tests/configure
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?



--
David Caro

Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D

Email: dcaro at redhat.com
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140612/1275cf47/attachment-0001.sig>