[Fuego] Parameter passing to tests

Rafael Gago Castano RGC at hms.se
Fri Jun 2 09:29:57 UTC 2017

> At the moment, what you can do is to configure your job:
> Jenkins > Testname > configure
>     export PARAM1="hello param 1"
>     export PARAM2="hello param 2"

What I was doing was adding the parameters to make a parametrized build instead 
because we favor working from the CLI (we have to automate everything and do
CI), but this is a valid solution too.

> That should achieve the same result as using the parameterized build plugin. But it would be more
> convenient to add an option to ftc:
> ftc add-jobs -p PARAM1="..."

Now you can use add-jobs to add multiple jobs at once, so then a real call would
be like:

ftc add-jobs job1 -p PARAM1="p1" -p PARAM2="ps" job2 -p PARAM1="p1" ...

What I don't like of this approach is that the extra parameters are far away
from where there are defined, so adding a parameter to a test needs a 
modification in three places (the test, the spec and the script that adds the
jobs). I suspect that this wouldn't bail out early when you do a typo or forget
that you refactored a parameter name.

What I had thought was to modify the JSON file:

  "testName": "Functional.serial",
      "name"        : "DEV",
      "description" : "Serial device to test",
      "default"     : "/dev/ttyPS0"
      "name"        : "BAUDRATES",
      "description" : "Space separated baudrate list in bps",
      "default"     : ""
      "name"      : "minimal",
      "BAUDRATES" : "9600 115200",
      "name"      : "full",
      "BAUDRATES" : "<big list with all Linux baudrates>",

By doing this way:

-Everything is kept compatible with what's in place now.
-All the definitions are still done in one single file.
-All available test parameters are integrated on both the jenkins web and 
 command line interface and can be overriden for a single run.
-The different specs generate different project names in jenkins, and this can 
 be used for our advantage when different specs test different things (more 
 baudrates on this example). At the same time it still keeps out user specific
 data out from the fuego repository.
-There is the parameter description that acts as test documentation (and is 
 shown on the Jenkins web interface too).
-All the parameters in the spec can be validated (for typos).
-The cli for add-jobs is kept as it is now (a bit simpler).
-The user can override one parameter while still using the spec (an test/jenkins 
 project name), e.g. if a serial device uses the full spec (and wants to appear
 on jenkins "board.Functional.serial") but doesn't support some all the baud
 rates on the full baud rate list.

Implementation remarks (that I can think of just now):

-All the test paramer values under "params" should be echoed before 
 initialization, so they end up in the jenkins log.
-All the parameters would take the same name that they take now, but they 
 would be defined by jenkins (or at least the parameter on the scripts would get
 the value from a jenkins parameter with a similar name).
-The default value on jenkins can come from the "default" field on the parameter
 map or from the "spec". So we could say that the spec values just override the 
 default value of the parameter. Which is enough for launching tests without
-If the params array is defined all the different parameters in the different
 specifications are validated for existance (typos). If the params array isn't
 defined the parameters array is deduced from all the parameters populated on
 all the different test specs.

> Configuring your job with new params is OK for debugging but in the long run
> you may also want to save those values into your board's testplan.

In our case it would be more convenient to skip the testplan feature completely.
We maintain 3 releases at the same time for many devices and that would end up
with tedious duplication if we don't generate the files dinamically. If we are
to script to generate the files it's the same effort to output each entry of 
the script processing to the jenkins CLI than to an intermediate testplan file.

We are dependant on test run ordering too for because we have a board 
setup/teardown test, but I guess that we hit a bug in this case (things stored
inside a python dictionary?).

> My proposal is as follows:
>   - testplans should generally be created by the user. We provide some testplans for reference only. In
> other words, a testplan is where you put your "dirty" changes.

I agree. Fuego should aim to keep its repositories free of user-local 

> - The idea is that you could add 3 jobs to your testplan using the same iperf spec, and then _OVERWRITE_ 
> those variables that you want to change (e.g. IP address)

IMO the JSON approach described + RAW jenkins enqueueing is preferrable for us,
but either your proposed solution or mine renders the testplan feature
incomplete. If I understand correctly the _OVERWRITE_ would be a new 
keyword/parameter on the testplan files to fix exactly this.

I guess that the implementation of this would just generate one jenkins project
and the .batch job would invoke it 3 times with the different values in some 
way. Generating three different projects would be a bit bruteforce-ish and 
perceived by the user as bloat.

>  - testplans should be moved to /fuego/fuego-ro/boards. 

IMO, and a bit unrelated, but one simple solution to these kind of issues
would be to have a fuego config parameter that points to another folder (that 
in practice would be an user-managed git repository) containing a fixed folder
layout will the user config. That folder should be mounted as rw on the
docker container (to be able to git pull from inside the container e.g. on a
nightly CI test run, now we are force to start the jobs on the container's host
machines to do git pull on the repositories).

So the folder structure could be something like:
├── boards
├── toolchains
├── tests
└── testplans

And then fuego should be able detect extra definitions on this folder. The 
objective of this would be to keep the fuego repositories totally free from user
data (except from the config file, which should be .gitignored).

> To achieve this we would need to update the testplans path throughout Fuego and then modify the overlay  generator so that
> testplan definitions overwrite those in the spec when prolog.sh is generated.
> Please let me know what you think about this solution.

I have not total knowledge of the fuego internals yet, sorry.

More information about the Fuego mailing list