Re: [Fuego] [PATCH 4/4] rt: search for the binary if the build phase is skipped

Hi Tim,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
[..]
> I was thinking of something like:
> prefer_host_test_programs=true|false
> in fuego.conf.
> 
> This would be PREFER_HOST_TEST_PROGRAMS as an environment variable or dynamic variable.
> 
> The effect of the flag would be to just change the search order in get_program_path from:
>  board test dir, alternate dirs., PATH
> to
>  PATH, alternate dirs., board test dir

Exactly what I was thinking.

> I still am not sure where the programs that you plan to install (outside of deploy) will reside.  It sounds like you plan to put them into
> $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR, but that would that mean you always have to set --preclean to false when doing ftc run-test.

No, no. This must be a misunderstanding. We install the tests into the typical path (/usr/loca/bin etc).

[...]
> Should I whip up an implementation.  I have the successor to get_program_path done, but would still need to do the config variable
> handling.
> 
> Having said all that, if you don't think you'll set the config variable, I'd rather not add the implementation for it.  Fuego already has a
> large number of somewhat idiosyncratic behaviors, and I'd like to avoid adding more unless there's a real use case for them.

I think the main use case for the variable is to select what binary to run when you have 2 (one in the system path and another one in $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR. We do not have this use case (we only install one test).

I think that Venkata's main concern was on the order of the search (first system path and second $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR). Perhaps modifying the order would be a good idea. However, this will only affect users who have 2 test binaries on the same host and that is not our use case.

The main use case for having 2 binaries on the same board would be comparing results between 2 versions of the same test. Or at least that is my guess.

Concluding:
- we don't need the global variable
- perhaps it's better to change the search order (first fuego's and second the host)

Thanks,
Daniel




> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Fuego <[email protected]> On Behalf Of
> > > [email protected]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:14 AM
> > > To: pyla venkata(ＴＳＩＰ) <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: [email protected]; nguyen dat tho(ＴＳＤＶ Ｅｎｇ　１)
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: [Fuego] [PATCH 4/4] rt: search for the binary if the
> > > build phase is skipped
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email protected]
> > > > <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tim,
> > > >
> > > > I have few questions on the below implementation for 'get_program_path'
> > > >
> > > > It looks like the function 'get_program_path' always first checks
> > > > the program is installed in 'PATH', then it checks in path $2 and
> > > > then
> > > $3.
> > >
> > > Path 3 is never checked, and it is not a list of directories to
> > > check.  It is the return value, if the program is not found in the other 2 paths, and if it is not specified, then it defaults to:
> > > $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR/{program_name}
> > >
> > > I did this to most closely match the current behavior of Fuego.
> > > In the discussion that follows, I'm using the following shorthand:
> > >  a)  board test dir = $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR
> > >  b) PATH = one of the directories in the target boards PATH variable
> > >  c) alternate dirs. = one of the directories specified as an
> > > argument to get_program_path (2nd argument)
> > >
> > > Fuego has several kinds of invocations of programs on the board in fuego_test.sh report functions currently:
> > >  - from the board test directory, using a relative path (e.g using 'cd board test dir ; ./program_name')
> > >     - these are always for programs that Fuego has deployed, this is
> > > by far the most common case
> > >  - from the board test directory, using a full path
> > >     - these are also always for programs that Fuego has deployed,
> > > this is very rare
> > >  - from the PATH, using just the program name
> > >     - these are always for programs that are already assumed to be on the target (xrandr, bc, ls, time, dd, cat, java, etc.)
> > >        - this is also a fairly common case.  In this case, Fuego never intended to install this program.
> > >         - if the program is possibly not present, then often there is an assert_has_program in the test_pre_check to
> > >           make sure it is present before proceeding.
> > >  - from other places
> > >     - LTP can be run from a pre-installed location now, but it requires manually configuring the spec with
> > >       a HOMEDIR argument (or the board with a FUNCTIONAL_LTP_HOMEDIR
> > > argument)
> > >
> > > > In this situation user cannot skip the installed programs in the PATH and instead use specified path in $2 or $3?
> > > That's correct.
> > >
> > > > It is not our use case anyway to skip the programs installed in
> > > > PATH, rather we want to use the installed programs in the PATH
> > > > variable, But I worried if I use 'get_program_path' in the
> > > > fuego_test.sh, it will always checks the program present in PATH
> > > > first and then specified in
> > > > $2 or $3,
> > > > this will break for the users who want to use program that is
> > > > compiled and deployed stages of fuego and also when the program is installed in the PATH.
> > >
> > > That's a good observation.  Given that the current most-common
> > > behavior is to run the test program from the board test directory, that should be the default behavior of get_program_path, in
> order to change the behavior for existing tests as little as possible.
> > >
> > > Under normal circumstances, if the test deploys a program that was
> > > built by Fuego, we want to run that, since it is most likely that
> > > the arguments and output will be what the Fuego test is expecting and can work with.  If a different version of the test program is
> on the board, then it might cause unexpected problems running it and parsing the output.
> > >
> > > That is, if Fuego has deployed 'dhrystone' (for example) to the
> > > board test directory, we probably want to run that instead of one found on the board PATH.
> > >
> > > > e.g:
> > > >  function test_run {
> > > > -    report "cd $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR; ./dhrystone $BENCHMARK_DHRYSTONE_LOOPS"
> > > > +    get_program_path 'dhrystone'
> > > > +    report "$PROGRAM_DHRYSTONE $BENCHMARK_DHRYSTONE_LOOPS"
> > > >  }
> > >
> > > As get_program_path is currently written, you are right, this gives
> > > preference to dhrystone on the PATH instead of the one in the board test dir.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Instead I am thinking something like this, the function
> > > > 'get_program_path' should first check the path specified in $2
> > > > (where the fuego build and deploy stage are performed) and, if not
> > > > found then check in path $3 (where fuego build and deploy stages
> > > > are
> > > skipped), this can be made default behaviour inside
> > > 'get_program_path' function and user can change if he want by passing different paths.
> > > I don't follow this.  Sorry.
> > >
> > > > function test_run {
> > > > -    report "cd $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR; ./dhrystone $BENCHMARK_DHRYSTONE_LOOPS"
> > > > +    get_program_path 'dhrystone'  "$BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR" "/bin"
> > > I'm not sure those arguments match what you are saying.  I'm also
> > > not sure where you think the PATH check should occur, in the sequence of checks (if anywhere).
> > >
> > > > +    report "$PROGRAM_DHRYSTONE $BENCHMARK_DHRYSTONE_LOOPS"
> > >
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > Also the 'get_program_path' function can be called inside the
> > > > report function with default behaviour, and then path for $3 variable can be modified by taking from test spec variable.
> > > > With this one can change the test behaviour to use the test program from specified path in the test spec itself.
> > > I like the idea of allowing the spec to indicate an alternate path.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know if this make sense, or clarify me if I misunderstood it entirely.
> > > You raise a good issue, but I'm not sure I understood exactly the use case you have.
> > >
> > > When you install the test program (eg. dhrystone) into the system,
> > > separately from the Fuego deploy step, are you planning on putting it in a regular system directory such as /usr/bin, or are you
> planning on putting it in the board test dir?
> > >
> > > Also, if the base distribution on the board already has the program,
> > > do you want the Fuego test to run the program you installed, or the one from the base distribution?
> > >
> > > In any event, let me describe some use cases and some search order
> > > precedences, and see if they cover the cases we're interested in - then propose a different implementation of get_program_path.
> > >
> > > Use case #1 - regular Fuego build, deploy and run
> > >   - fuego phasese run: build, deploy, run (and others)
> > >  - preferred search preference:
> > >     - board test dir
> > >     - alternate dir(s) (if specified)
> > >     - PATH dir(s)
> > >
> > >  Use case #2 - Fuego run, without build and deploy
> > >    - fuego phases run: only 'run'
> > >    - preferred search preference:
> > >       - board test dir
> > >       - alternate dir(s) (if specified)
> > >       - PATH dir(s)
> > >
> > >  Use case #3 - Fuego test that anticipates that the distro may already have the test program installed
> > >     - fuego phases run: only 'run'
> > >     - preferred search preference
> > >        - from alternate dir
> > >        - from PATH
> > >        - from board test dir
> > >
> > > Actually, in case 3, since there is no deploy step, there is no harm
> > > to keep the same search order as cases #1 and #2 (board test dir first), as the program should never be found in the board test dir.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if this is correct.
> > >
> > > So, I'm inclined to re-write get_program_path to switch the search order to:
> > >  - board test dir
> > >  - alternate dir
> > >  - PATH
> > >
> > > I find the $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR to be annoying, and I had
> > > hoped to avoid using it as an argument.  If it's always the first
> > > place searched, then it doesn't need to be specified in the
> > > arguments.  If the reference to it could be removed from
> > > fuego_test.sh scripts, then it would give the Fuego system the
> > > flexibility to change it or use other shell variables in the future
> > > (which could be useful.)
> > >
> > > get_program_path would then have the following arguments:
> > >   $1 - program to search for
> > >   $2 - alternate dirs. to search (optional, and takes precedence
> > > over the PATH)
> > >
> > > This does not support the case where you want to override running the program from the board test dir (using an alternate
> location).
> > > However, that case can be handled by not using get_program_path, and doing the check directly using something like this:
> > > if cmd "test -x $FUNCTIONAL_XXX_PROGRAM_FOO_PATH" ; then
> > >     report "$FUCTIONAL_XXX_PROGRAM_FOO_PATH ..."
> > > else
> > >    ... fall back to some other search path, or report failure ...
> > > fi
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >  -- Tim
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Venkata.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: Fuego <[email protected]> On Behalf
> > > > >Of [email protected]
> > > > >Sent: 02 September 2021 00:40
> > > > >To: nguyen dat tho(ＴＳＤＶ Ｅｎｇ　１) <[email protected]>
> > > > >Cc: [email protected]
> > > > >Subject: Re: [Fuego] [PATCH 4/4] rt: search for the binary if the
> > > > >build phase is skipped
> > > > >
> > > > >OK - I have completed work on a new function to support the feature you desire.
> > > > >
> > > > >It is called 'get_program_path', and it is documented here:
> > > > >http://fuegotest.org/wiki/function_get_program_path
> > > > >
> > > > >Please check out this function, and see if it does what you would like.
> > > > >I have also created a test (Functional.fuego_function_gpp_check)
> > > > >that tests get_program_path, to verify that it works correctly.
> > > > >Please try this test in your environment and let me know if you
> > > > >encounter any problems.
> > > > >
> > > > >Also, please note that I have added additional functionality to
> > > > >the report and report_append functions, to cd to the test
> > > > >directory on the board
> > > > >($BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR) automatically, as part of every
> > > > >call to those functions.
> > > > >
> > > > >This means that we can remove that 'cd' operation from a lot of
> > > > >report() and report_append() calls.
> > > > >
> > > > >I assume that because the PROGRAM_xxx variable will have a full
> > > > >path, the cd is no longer required in tests that use this as
> > > > >well.  I thought it safer, since you might be modifying the
> > > > >report() lines for multiple tests, to set the default working
> > > > >directory.  If needed, you can now remove the "cd $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR" command from any tests you modify.
> > > > >
> > > > >This solves the problem that your patch originally addressed, but
> > > > >I have a nagging feeling that the higher level concept of
> > > > >installing pre-built packages as part of board provisioning might be addressed in another way.
> > > > >
> > > > >Are you familiar with the 'binary packages' feature of Fuego?
> > > > >There is a tool to pre-build binary packages for a board, called
> > > > >fuego-core/scripts/make_cache.sh This is used to create a set of
> > > > >binary packages (also called 'target packages') that can be installed separate from Fuego test execution.
> > > > >
> > > > >This is a feature that was under development for some time, and
> > > > >then got put on the backburner.  Please see the page:
> > > > >http://fuegotest.org/wiki/Target_Packages.
> > > > >
> > > > >These packages are intended to replace the 'build' and 'deploy'
> > > > >phases of a test, when they are used.  The package contents are
> > > > >(usually) installed relative to $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR,
> > > > >but it is possible to install them somewhere else (e.g. globally
> > > > >under say
> > > > >/opt/test/fuego)
> > > > >
> > > > >One idea for this, was to have pre-built binary packages for
> > > > >tests on a central server, so that someone could run Fuego and
> > > > >its tests without having to install a toolchain for a board at all.
> > > > >
> > > > >It sounds like you are doing something similar for integration
> > > > >with LAVA and/or kernelci.
> > > > >(using pre-installed test programs, and skipping the 'build' and
> > > > >'deploy' steps.)
> > > > >
> > > > >I'd like to get more details about what you are doing, to
> > > > >possibly consolidate these features and avoid fragmenting the code.
> > > > > -- Tim
> > > > >
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: [email protected]
> > > > >> <[email protected]>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dear Tim,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Let me know what you think.  I had hoped to prototype
> > > > >> > something today, but ran out of time working on other issues.
> > > > >> > I'll see what I can
> > > > >> whip up, Please let me know if you see any problems with this
> > > > >> approach.  I think it covers your use case.  You will need to
> > > > >> have a separate
> > > > >mechanism for skipping the build and deploy steps for your use
> > > > >case (but Fuego supports this with the test phase control options of ftc).
> > > > >> It sounds good.
> > > > >> When you finished, please let me know. I will update this patch
> > > > >> follow your
> > > > >idea.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Tho
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> > > > >> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 12:28 PM
> > > > >> To: sangorrin daniel(サンゴリン ダニエル □ＳＷＣ◯ＡＣＴ)
> > > > >> <[email protected]>
> > > > >> Cc: [email protected]; nguyen dat tho(ＴＳＤＶ Ｅｎｇ　１)
> > > > >> <[email protected]>
> > > > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/4] rt: search for the binary if the build
> > > > >> phase is skipped
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> > From: [email protected]
> > > > >> > <[email protected]>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Hi Tim,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks again for your review.
> > > > >> > We will fix the patch and re-send.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > See my comments inline:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> > > > >> > > Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 5:16 AM
> > > > >> > > To: sangorrin daniel(サンゴリン ダニエル □ＳＷＣ◯ＡＣＴ)
> > > > >> > > <[email protected]>
> > > > >> > > Cc: [email protected]; nguyen dat tho(ＴＳＤＶ
> > > > >> > > Ｅｎｇ　１
> > > > >)
> > > > >> > > <[email protected]>
> > > > >> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/4] rt: search for the binary if the
> > > > >> > > build phase is skipped
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> > > > From: Daniel Sangorrin <[email protected]>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > From: Nguyen Dat Tho <[email protected]>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > ftc has the ability to skip the build phase to use a
> > > > >> > > > previously built binary or a binary installed on the
> > > > >> > > > board's file system (e.g. apt-get install rt-tests).
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Nguyen Dat Tho
> > > > >> > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Sangorrin
> > > > >> > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > >> > > > ---
> > > > >> > > >  tests/Benchmark.cyclictest/fuego_test.sh  | 7 ++++++-
> > > > >> > > >  tests/Benchmark.hackbench/fuego_test.sh   | 7 ++++++-
> > > > >> > > >  tests/Benchmark.migratetest/fuego_test.sh | 7 ++++++-
> > > > >> > > >  tests/Benchmark.pmqtest/fuego_test.sh     | 8 +++++++-
> > > > >> > > >  tests/Benchmark.ptsematest/fuego_test.sh  | 8 +++++++-
> > > > >> > > > tests/Benchmark.signaltest/fuego_test.sh  | 7 ++++++-
> > > > >> > > > tests/Benchmark.sigwaittest/fuego_test.sh | 7 ++++++-
> > > > >> > > > tests/Benchmark.svsematest/fuego_test.sh  | 7 ++++++-
> > > > >> > > >  tests/Functional.pi_tests/fuego_test.sh   | 7 ++++++-
> > > > >> > > >  9 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > diff --git a/tests/Benchmark.cyclictest/fuego_test.sh
> > > > >> > > > b/tests/Benchmark.cyclictest/fuego_test.sh
> > > > >> > > > index 74d9d24..e7070dd 100755
> > > > >> > > > --- a/tests/Benchmark.cyclictest/fuego_test.sh
> > > > >> > > > +++ b/tests/Benchmark.cyclictest/fuego_test.sh
> > > > >> > > > @@ -24,5 +24,10 @@ function test_deploy {  }
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >  function test_run {
> > > > >> > > > -    report "cd $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR; ./cyclictest
> > > > >$BENCHMARK_CYCLICTEST_PARAMS"
> > > > >> > > > +    if [ -f $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR/cyclictest ];
> > > > >> > > > + then
> > > > >> > > This test ([ -f) won't work on a remote board.  This is
> > > > >> > > running on the host machine, which has a different
> > > > >> > > filesystem than the device under
> > > > >test, unless you are running using the 'local' TRANSPORT.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > There should be a cmd() in here somewhere to perform this
> > > > >> > > test on the
> > > > >board's filesystem.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Yes, you are totally right. Sorry for not catching that
> > > > >> > problem during my
> > > > >review.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > I'm not sure I follow this.  What does the test_deploy() function look like?
> > > > >> > > Under what circumstances would cyclictest not be present in
> > > > >> > > the boards
> > > > >$BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR directory?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > We want to run fuego natively because it is easier to run it
> > > > >> > on certain
> > > > >scenarios such as LAVA board farms and custom cloud images.
> > > > >> > We also want to use packaged versions of the tests and do not
> > > > >> > store any test tarball in our repositories. So the OS image
> > > > >> > will already have the
> > > > >tests there and therefore we will skip the build/deploy phases.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > It seems like this code should be coupled with code that
> > > > >> > > detects if the program is already present, and if so 1)
> > > > >> > > avoids deploying it and
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > We are skipping the build and deploy phase on purpose from ftc.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > 2) then uses it for the test.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Something like this:
> > > > >> > > test_deploy {
> > > > >> > >   is_on_target_path cyclictest PROGRAM_CYCLICTEST
> > > > >> > >   if [ -z "$PROGRAM_CYCLICTEST" ] ; then
> > > > >> > >      put cyclictest $BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > PROGRAM_CYCLICTEST=$BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR/cyclictest
> > > > >> > >  fi
> > > > >> > >   export PROGRAM_CYCLICTEST }
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > and then in test_run:
> > > > >> > >   if [ -n "$PROGRAM_CYCLICTEST" ] ; then
> > > > >> > >     report "$PROGRAM_CYCLICTEST $BENCHMARK_CYCLICTEST_PARAMS"
> > > > >> > >   else
> > > > >> > >     abort_job "cyclictest is not found on the target"
> > > > >> > >   fi
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Maybe I'm not understanding the use case here.  Is this for
> > > > >> > > running a pre-existing program on the board, or a program
> > > > >> > > that was already placed in the BOARD_TESTDIR directory
> > > > >> > > (e.g. from a previous run of
> > > > >> the test)?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > A pre-existing program on the board (e.g. previously installed).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > If we have this pattern a lot, then maybe it would make
> > > > >> > > sense to make the
> > > > >optional deploy code  a core function, like:
> > > > >> > >    put_if_program_not_present cyclictest
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > We are skipping the build/deploy phase using ftc. What do you think?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> OK, based on that, I think I'd like to structure this as follows:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'd like to add a new core function called 'get_program_path'
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The intent is that code in a test_run function can use that to
> > > > >> find the correct path to execute the test program (possibly
> > > > >> based on per-lab
> > > > >policy).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The sequence in test_run function would look like this:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>   get_program_path cyclictest
> > > > >>   report "$PROGRAM_CYCLICTEST $ARGS"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There would be no conditionals in the code for individual tests
> > > > >> - just this
> > > > >additional call to get_program_path.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The 'get_program_path' function would have the following functionality:
> > > > >> (in pseudo-code, with 'cyclictest' used as a placeholder name
> > > > >> for an arbitrary
> > > > >program name):
> > > > >>
> > > > >> if is_on_target_path cyclictest ; then
> > > > >>    PROGRAM_CYCLICTEST=(the target path found) elsif cmd "test
> > > > >> -f
> > > > >$BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR/cyclictest" ; then
> > > > >>    PROGRAM_CYCLICTEST=$BOARD_TESTDIR/fuego.$TESTDIR/cyclictest
> > > > >> else
> > > > >>    abortjob "cyclictest was not found"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If the function succeeds, then it sets the value of
> > > > >> PROGRAM_CYCLICTEST to the
> > > > >path on the board to be used to execute cyclictest.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This should handle the following cases:
> > > > >>  - cyclictest is on the board (on the PATH) from external
> > > > >> pre-installation (outside of Fuego)
> > > > >>  - cyclictest is on the board in the test directory (from Fuego's deploy, or from
> > > > >>   a previous test invocation that did not remove the test
> > > > >> directory)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The function get_program_path could be extended in the future
> > > > >> to implement other program search policies.  The policy above
> > > > >> is "use test program already on the board, if found, then the
> > > > >> one installed by Fuego."  Other policies might be "use the test
> > > > >> program installed by Fuego, then one already on the board, if
> > > > >> present", or "let the
> > > > >> report() function
> > > > >figure out if the program is present or not in the test directory"
> > > > >(this is Fuego's current policy).  But extending this to support
> > > > >other policies (and adding the test program search policy to the fuego.conf file) will be left for a future exercise.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Let me know what you think.  I had hoped to prototype something
> > > > >> today, but ran out of time working on other issues.  I'll see
> > > > >> what I can whip up, Please let me know if you see any problems
> > > > >> with this approach.  I think it
> > > > >covers your use case.  You will need to have a separate mechanism
> > > > >for skipping the build and deploy steps for your use case (but
> > > > >Fuego supports this with the test phase control options of ftc).
> > > > >>  -- Tim
> > > > >
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >Fuego mailing list
> > > > >[email protected]
> > > > >https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fuego
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Fuego mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fuego