[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 65112: regressions - FAIL
On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 14:03 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 13:24 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 65112: > > regressions - FAIL"): > > > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 12:02 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > As explained below, in 65112 this step did not run because the > > > > earlier > > > > step `guest-localmigrate' failed: > > > > Â http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/65112/test-amd64 > > > > - > > > > amd64-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/info.html > > > > > > Would it be possible to arrange for "blocked" to appear somewhere in > > > the > > > results for the job? e.g. "blocked fail in XXX REGR. vs. YYY". > > > README.email > > > says "The results normally start with the result in this flight" and > > > I > > > think this would be in keeping with that. > > > > But it might not be true that it was blocked. > > Can't sg-run-job tell if it was blocked vs something else though? I meant sg-report-flight, of course. > > I was suggesting to only add blocked if it was blocked, I'm not sure what > I > was suggesting to do for other reason not to run, because I hadn't really > considered it, but those would be unusual I think? > > > ÂÂMaybe the version of > > osstest used didn't have that step at all, for example. > > In which case would it still be considering the step for failures at all? > > i.e. if: > > flight 100 had test-foo == pass > flight 200 had test-foo == fail (blocking) > flight 201 had test-foo == blocked; fail in 201 vs 100 > flight 202 had no test-foo present at all > > Would the decision for flight 202 really be to consider the test-foo > results in 100, 200 and 201, and therefore block? > > > The best you could say would be something like > > Â "not run; fail in XXX REGR. vs. YYY" > > but that poses more questions than it answers. > > Right. > > > > > > Otherwise I think people naturally tend to just read the "and are > > > blocking" > > > section and forget to consider that non-blocking stuff further down > > > may > > > have (tolerably) failed but then blocking something else which is > > > then > > > blocking the push. > > > > Perhaps sg-report-flight could, if there are any blockages of the form > > `fail in XXX REGR. vs YYY', add a note below the blockage section, > > saying something like `XXX examined since needed to justify other > > failures, see below'. > > > > I'm a bit reluctant to suggest this because it is, essentially, > > boilerplate - it would always say the same thing about any `fail in > > XXX' - and filling reports like this with boilerplate isn't always a > > good idea. > > In general I agree, in this case it might be worth it to counteract a > (perfectly understandable IMHO) natural tendency to only look at the > section labelled blocking, it's basically "don't forget that this non- > blocking stuff might actually be relevant to the blockage". > > Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |