[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC PATCH-for-5.2] gitlab-ci: Do not automatically run Avocado inte

From: Ademar Reis
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-for-5.2] gitlab-ci: Do not automatically run Avocado integration tests anymore
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:45:31 -0500

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:31:09AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 07:29:31PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 27/11/2020 18.57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > On 11/27/20 6:47 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > >> On 27/11/2020 18.41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > >>> We lately realized that the Avocado framework was not designed
> > >>> to be regularly run on CI environments. Therefore, as of 5.2
> > >>> we deprecate the gitlab-ci jobs using Avocado. To not disrupt
> > >>> current users, it is possible to keep the current behavior by
> > >>> setting the QEMU_CI_INTEGRATION_JOBS_PRE_5_2_RELEASE variable
> > >>> (see [*]).
> > >>> From now on, using these jobs (or adding new tests to them)
> > >>> is strongly discouraged.
> > >>>
> > >>> Tests based on Avocado will be ported to new job schemes during
> > >>> the next releases, with better documentation and templates.
> > >>
> > >> Why should we disable the jobs by default as long as there is no 
> > >> replacement
> > >> available yet?
> > > 
> > > Why keep it enabled if it is failing randomly
> > 
> > We can still disable single jobs if they are not stable, but that's no
> > reason to disable all of them by default, is it?
> Agreed, the jobs which are known to be broken or unreliable should
> be unconditonally disabled in QEMU as a whole. This isn't specific
> to gitlab config - the qemu build makefiles/mesonfiles should disable
> the problem tests entirely, as we don't want developers wasting time
> running them locally either if they're known to be broken/unreliable.

The problem is identifying when a test is broken/unreliable. No
complex test is 100% reliable: change the environment,
(configuration, build options, platform, etc) and any test complex
enough will start to fail. I've worked in projects orders of
magnitude simpler than QEMU and that was a golden rule. Testing QEMU
is *HARD*.

Which is why I defend test-automation separated from CI:

 * Have a stable CI with tests cherry-picked by whoever is
   maintaining a particular CI runner (we shouldn't have orphan

 * Have as many tests as possible in the git repo: maintained,
   reviewed and run (outside of a CI) by people who care about them.

I absolutely agree with you that maintainers and developers should
care and our goal should be a gating CI. The question is how to
create a strategy and a plan to get there. Forcing people to care
rarely works.

   - Ademar

Ademar Reis Jr
Red Hat


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]