[Fuego] status update

Milo Casagrande milo.casagrande at linaro.org
Thu Jun 29 07:15:30 UTC 2017


Hello,

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Daniel Sangorrin
<daniel.sangorrin at toshiba.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Milo sent 3 hackbench json files but not an LTP one. LTP normally can work with 3 levels
> (e.g.: LTP > syscalls > kill01) so there is no problem about that.

we don't have any actual LTP runs in our dataset, just some kselftest
and hackbench.

> However, LTP now also includes 2 more test suites inside (Posix
> open testsuite, and the real-time testsuite) with their own test sets and test cases.
> For that reason, you could end up with 4 nested levels (unless you create 3 test suites
> from the same source code).

In this case the kernelci test schemas might pose a problem, I don't
think we ever considered this scenario.

> I think this is a better analogy:
>    test_suite, test_set , test_case == test_name, groupname, test == bonnie, sequential_output, rewrite
>
> The concept of test_plan is not in kernel ci afaik (maybe it is in LAVA with a different name such batch jobs?).

No, kernelci doesn't hold any "test plan", we just keep the results
(but it depends also on the definition you are giving to "test plan":
for us is "a document describing the test workflow").
I'm not even sure if those are stored in LAVA though.

-- 
Milo Casagrande
Linaro.org <www.linaro.org> │ Open source software for ARM SoCs


More information about the Fuego mailing list