Re: Are we running libpayload unit tests in the CI?
Julius Werner <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.bios |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAODwPW8_XSxwHnN=-tTDem9+jKA6=MiCMU9cyEVZhDadXZMV_g@mail.gmail.com> |
Great, thanks a lot for tracking this down and getting it fixed! On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 12:50 PM Martin Roth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Julius, I've fixed the issue you were seeing. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. > > There were 2 things that were contributing to jenkins not seeing the libpayload files: > 1) They were deeper in the tree than we were looking for junit*.xml files. These were only getting picked up two levels deep into the payloads directory: payloads/*/*/junit*.xml > 2) We were also looking for junit.xml files anywhere in the tree, but the output files only match junit*.xml files. > > Here's the list of files we needed to find: > ./payloads/libpayload/build/coverage/junit-libpayload-tests-build.xml > ./payloads/libpayload/build/coverage/junit-libpayload-tests_libcbfs_cbfs-no-verification-has-sha512-test(tests).xml > ./payloads/libpayload/build/coverage/junit-libpayload-tests_libcbfs_cbfs-no-verification-no-sha512-test(tests).xml > ./payloads/libpayload/build/coverage/junit-libpayload-tests_libcbfs_cbfs-verification-has-sha512-test(tests).xml > ./payloads/libpayload/build/coverage/junit-libpayload-tests_libcbfs_cbfs-verification-no-sha512-test(tests).xml > ./payloads/libpayload/build/coverage/junit-libpayload-tests_libcbfs_cbfs-lookup-has-fallback-test(tests).xml > ./payloads/libpayload/build/coverage/junit-libpayload-tests_libcbfs_cbfs-lookup-no-fallback-test(tests).xml > ./payloads/libpayload/build/coverage/junit-libpayload-tests_libc_fmap_locate_area-test(tests).xml > ./payloads/libpayload/build/coverage/junit-libpayload-tests_drivers_speaker-test(tests).xml > > I've updated the general pattern to find junit*.xml files anywhere in the tree, and now they're seen by the jenkins log collector. > > In the output of https://qa.coreboot.org/job/coreboot-gerrit/253059/ you can see that we now get 4 errors: > Test Result (4 failures / +4) > tests_libcbfs_cbfs-lookup-has-fallback-test(tests).test_cbfs_unverified_area_map, RW, aligned > tests_libcbfs_cbfs-lookup-has-fallback-test(tests).test_cbfs_unverified_area_map, RW, unaligned > tests_libcbfs_cbfs-lookup-no-fallback-test(tests).test_cbfs_unverified_area_map, RW, aligned > tests_libcbfs_cbfs-lookup-no-fallback-test(tests).test_cbfs_unverified_area_map, RW, unaligned > > Thanks again for helping to fix this problem. > > Martin > > Feb 28, 2024, 16:22 by [email protected]: > > > Hmm... well, I just uploaded a CL that clearly breaks one of the > > tests, and Jenkins still gave me a Verified+1: > > https://review.coreboot.org/80788 > > > > I also don't see any info about the tests running on the test report > > (https://qa.coreboot.org/job/coreboot-gerrit/252941/testReport/(root)/). > > So if the tests are running (and the code you pointed out strongly > > looks like they should be), it's probably a problem with reading back > > the test results? How does Jenkins collect those XML files? > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 7:04 PM Martin Roth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> Hey Julius, > >> Here's what we running: > >> https://review.coreboot.org/plugins/gitiles/coreboot/+/refs/heads/main/util/testing/Makefile.mk#106 > >> > >> Martin > >> Feb 27, 2024 at 18:31 by [email protected]: > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > We've had unit test support in libpayload for over two years now, but > >> > I just noticed that it doesn't look like we're actually running them > >> > in the CI? E.g. if I look through a test run like this > >> > https://qa.coreboot.org/job/coreboot-gerrit/252761/testReport/(root)/ > >> > I can't find them anywhere (most of them have confusingly similar > >> > names with coreboot unit tests, but "fmap_locate_area-test" is a > >> > unique one). > >> > > >> > Is that intended or an oversight? Would it be easy to fix? (I'm not > >> > super familiar with how the tests are integrated into Jenkins, but the > >> > libpayload framework is pretty much a direct copy of the coreboot > >> > framework, so if we can run the coreboot ones hopefully it should be > >> > easy to run the libpayload ones as well?) > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] > >> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]