Beaker-devel March 2015

beaker-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org

7 participants
6 discussions

Future directions for the Beaker test harness
by Nick Coghlan 12 Mar '18

12 Mar '18

A few weeks back, Amit put together a proof of concept for running the test harness in a container, rather than directly on the host (http://gerrit.beaker-project.org/#/c/3199) That proof of concept relies on restraint, the new reference harness, that is intended to eventually replace beah (https://beaker-project.org/dev/proposals/reference-harness.html) At the same time, I don't think restraint is currently getting the level of review and testing that it needs to mature into a plausible replacement for beah as the default harness. I think Amit's proposed patch provides a possible way forward: 1. Accept the initial approach where restraint is the *only* supported harness when running inside a container. Specifying both "contained_harness" and "harness" as ks_meta variables should be an error at this point (side note: 'harness' should also be documented along with all the other ks_meta variables, with a link to https://beaker-project.org/docs/alternative-harnesses/) 2. Recommend publishing both beah *and* restraint in the harness repos for Beaker installations. This will not only make restraint available for container based testing, but also make it readily available via "harness=restraint" for normal testing, without needing to add a custom repo definition. 3. Once we have container based testing working reliably with restraint, drop the restriction against using alternative harnesses in containers. The priority at the moment though is to get something working that can run on an Atomic Host, and still provide a relatively normal execution environment for the executed tasks. Supporting alternative harnesses *inside* containers is a nice-to-have that can wait until later - by flatly disallowing it, we ensure we don't have to spend any time working on container related issues that don't impact restraint. For the initial iteration, we can also ignore the question of choosing the base image used to run the harness, as well as being able to start and stop other containers on the host. I've filed an RFE for 0.18 on that basis: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131388 As part of this, we may also want to move restraint from Bill's personal account on GitHub to the main Beaker project account, but I don't think that's particularly urgent at this point. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan Red Hat Hosted & Shared Services Software Engineering & Development, Brisbane HSS Provisioning Architect

5 10

Beaker inventory: smolt & lshw comparison
by Amit Saha 24 Apr '15

24 Apr '15

Hi all, As part of the migration to "lshw" for beaker's inventory task, I ran a comparison of the "smolt" based tasks with the "lshw" based task. The "raw" data is available in the "comparison.html" file under each arch sub-directory at: https://amitksaha.fedorapeople.org/beaker-inventory-comparison/comparison_d… Here are the summarized differences: ** i686/AMD/athlon (32-bit system) CPU flags ========= * lshw categorises "fpu_exception" as a CPU flag, adds "wp" as cpu flag too. (This is because we assume all the stuff lshw lists as CPU capabilities, we consider them flags) Others ====== * USBID retrieved by lshw with repetition, smolt didn't retrieve any * Same PCIID retrieved by lshw, however there is repetition of a device (for PCIID as well) * lshw is not able to detect the system model (same as smolt) * lshw sets arch to i686 instead of i386 by smolt * lshw fails to get the system vendor (same as smolt) * lshw fails to get the FORMFACTOR * CPUVENDOR obtained by smolt is AuthenticAMD, lshw sets it to "Advanced Micro Devices [AMD]" ** ia64 CPU flags ========= * No CPU flags retrieved by lshw Others ====== * Bulk of the USB IDs retrieved are 0000:0000s * lshw is not able to detect the system model * CPUFAMILY is reported by smolt as 1, by lshw as 2 * lshw fails to get the system vendor * lshw fails to get the FORMFACTOR, same as smolt * CPUVENDOR obtained by smolt is genuineintel, lshw sets it to "Intel corp." * CPU stepping obtained by smolt is 0, whereas it is None by lshw * PCIIDS retrieved by lshw contain one missing PCIID and a number of repetitions * Memory reported by smolt is 7863 MB, 8192 by smolt. (**Needs more investigation**) ** ppc64/Power 6 CPU flags ========= * No CPU flags retrieved by either Others ====== * USBID retrieved by lshw, none by smolt, contains one repetition * lshw is not able to detect the system model, same as smolt * lshw fails to get the system vendor * lshw reports a repeating PCIID (same as smolt) ** ppc64/Power 7 CPU flags ========= * CPU flags retrieved by lshw as "performance-monitor" Others ====== * No USB devices reported by either * lshw is not able to detect the system model, same as smolt * lshw fails to get the system vendor * lshw and smolt both doesn't report any PCIIDs ** s390 CPU flags ========= * CPU flags reported by lshw are each duplicated Others ====== * No USBIDs retrieved by lshw, none by smolt * lshw is not able to detect the system model, same as smolt * lshw fails to get the system vendor, same as smolt * lshw reports a repeating PCIID (same as smolt) * Memory is reported as 2001 MB by both, system has 2048 MB ** x86_64/amd CPU flags ========= * lshw uses x86-64 in place of lm * lshw categorises "fpu_exception" and "cpufreq" as a CPU flags (This is because we assume all the stuff lshw lists as CPU capabilities, we consider them flags) Others ====== * More USBID retrieved by lshw, however there is repetition of a device (for PCIID as well) * lshw is not able to detect the system model * lshw sets VIRT_IOMMU to False, whereas smolt has it to True * lshw sets arch to x86-64 instead of x86_64 * smolt gets CPUMODEL as " AMD Eng Sample, 1S256146U8K54_35/25/20_2/8 ", lshw gets it as "Opteron" * lshw fails to get the system vendor * lshw fails to get the FORMFACTOR * CPUVENDOR obtained by smolt is AuthenticAMD, lshw sets it to "Advanced Micro Devices [AMD]" * smolt gets 3811 MB of memory, lshw gets None on an 3919 MB system (**Needs more investigation**) ** x86_64/intel CPU flags ========= * lshw uses x86-64 in place of lm * lshw categorises "fpu_exception" and "cpufreq" as a CPU flags (This is because we assume all the stuff lshw lists as CPU capabilities, we consider them flags) Others ====== * More USBID retrieved by lshw, however there is repetition of a device * lshw is not able to detect the system model * lshw sets arch to x86-64 instead of x86_64 * smolt gets CPUMODEL as "Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.60GHz", lshw gets it as "Xeon" * lshw fails to get the system vendor * CPUVENDOR/vendor obtained by smolt is GenuineIntel, lshw sets it to Intel Corp. * lshw gets 4096 MB of memory correctly ** x86_64/kvm guest CPU flags ========= * lshw uses x86-64 in place of lm * lshw categorises "fpu_exception" as a CPU flag (This is because we assume all the stuff lshw lists as CPU capabilities, we consider them flags) Others ====== * USBID retrieved by lshw, none by smolt * lshw is not able to detect the system model * lshw sets arch to x86-64 instead of x86_64 * lshw fails to get the system vendor * CPUVENDOR/vendor obtained by smolt is GenuineIntel, lshw sets it to Intel Corp. * lshw fails finds one device less (PCIID) * lshw gets 2048 MB of memory correctly ** Common to all archs For all the architectures, the devices list returned by the lshw task is fewer than those returned by smolt. The devices need to be individually compared to come up with a more accurate answer. PS: arm 32-bit and 64-bit comparison: Not possible, since we cannot run any smolt supported distro on these. The next plan of action is to fix the issues that we have found above - either in "beaker-system-scan" or "lshw" itself. Best, Amit. -- Amit Saha SED, Hosted & Shared Services Red Hat, Inc.

3 7

bkr client docker image
by Amit Saha 31 Mar '15

31 Mar '15

Just something which may be useful: https://github.com/amitsaha/docker_files/tree/master/dev_workflow/beaker-cl… Everytime you run the image, it will always try to install the latest beaker client from the nightlies repository. Example: $ docker run -ti amitsaha/bkr job-list --hub=https://beaker.server.com --username asaha .... --> Running transaction check ---> Package beaker-client.noarch 0:19.4-0.git.109.fc3396d.fc19 will be updated ---> Package beaker-client.noarch 0:19.4-0.git.112.ed6b232.fc19 will be an update --> Processing Dependency: beaker-common = 19.4-0.git.112.ed6b232.fc19 for package: beaker-client-19.4-0.git.112.ed6b232.fc19.noarch --> Running transaction check ---> Package beaker-common.noarch 0:19.4-0.git.109.fc3396d.fc19 will be updated ---> Package beaker-common.noarch 0:19.4-0.git.112.ed6b232.fc19 will be an update --> Finished Dependency Resolution Dependencies Resolved .. .. Updated: beaker-client.noarch 0:19.4-0.git.112.ed6b232.fc19 Enter your password: ["J:7637", "J:7636" .. Best, Amit. -- Amit Saha <http://echorand.me> PnT DevOps - Developer Red Hat, Inc.

2 3

Which restraint repo to use ?
by Alexander Todorov 25 Mar '15

25 Mar '15

Hi guys, I've found two repos for restraint: https://bpeck.fedorapeople.org/restraint/el7/ https://amitksaha.fedorapeople.org/restraint/centos7/ It looks like the 1st one is more up-to-date. Which one is recommended for use? Thanks, Alex

3 7

Running Beaker's tests in a Docker container
by Amit Saha 13 Mar '15

13 Mar '15

While working with beaker‘s code base, I often feel the need to run my tests for a patch/feature and continue to work on with different things while they run, including running other tests testing something different. Currently this is not possible since we start off with a clean database on every test run and simultaneous runs would obviously make one run step on another’s feet. I finally have an initial docker based prototype for making this possible: https://github.com/amitsaha/docker_files/tree/master/dev_workflow/beaker-te… Best, Amit.

3 7

Integration Tests results
by Jaroslav Kortus 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

Hi there, I've just executed full integration tests run with the following result (patched develop branch): Ran 1345 tests in 6731.735s FAILED (SKIP=3, errors=70, failures=55) real 112m14.756s user 101m11.856s sys 7m42.248s Quite some errors then. Much more than I expected :). Looking at the results I have mixed feelings. Some selenium tests were failing (almost all in my case). When I ran the same test alone it passed with no problems. To get more data I ran the suite with "-sv" switch. Looking at the output there are some things that I'm not sure are errors or not. For instance: bkr.server.mail: ERROR: Exception thrown when trying to send mail [...] error: [Errno 111] Connection refused bkr.server.tests.data_setup: DEBUG: Marked R:706 as complete with result Pass or: FAIL: test_all_tables_use_innodb (bkr.inttest.server.test_model.SchemaSanityTest) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/root/beaker-private/IntegrationTests/src/bkr/inttest/server/test_model.py", line 55, in test_all_tables_use_innodb table), 'InnoDB') AssertionError: u'MyISAM' != 'InnoDB' I've not created any new tables there (only added columns to existing tables). So how can this happen? So the main question here is, are all the tests expected to pass on the develop branch? Or what are the usual results I can compare my patches to? Are there any other requirements besides the deps of integration tests RPM and https://beaker-project.org/dev/guide/writing-a-patch.html#testing-your-patc… Thank you, Jaroslav. PS: are the results saved somewhere or is stdout the only option? "--debug-log" looks more like the framework debugging than the actual tests' debug output...

4 6

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

Beaker-devel March 2015