action #157855
closed
coordination #151816: [epic] Handle openQA fixes and job group setup
[Research:16h] Do the research about if we should change to use 'pvm-hmc' instead of 'spvm'
Added by tinawang123 about 2 months ago.
Updated about 1 month ago.
Description
Motivation¶
Related topic: https://suse.slack.com/archives/C02CLB2LB7Z/p1711336690600979
Related ticket: https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/139199
Need check if pvm-hmc works well for our jobs.
Failures that you find related with changing in backend should be discussed with the squad internally, as there are old problems that were never resolved and no squad took responsibility for them in the past, so we should discuss it internally and try to find existing ticket.
Acceptance¶
AC1: Select a subset of test suite running installation and migration and run them with hmc backend.
AC2: Run them to provide statistics, 10 times each test suite for example.
AC3: Share findings with squad about the rate of failures found.
- Subject changed from [Research] Do the research about if we should change to use 'pvm-hmc' instead of 'spvm' to [Research:8h] Do the research about if we should change to use 'pvm-hmc' instead of 'spvm'
- Description updated (diff)
- Status changed from New to Workable
- Parent task set to #151816
- Tags set to qe-yam-mar-sprint
- Tags changed from qe-yam-mar-sprint to qe-yam-apr-sprint
- Status changed from Workable to In Progress
- Assignee set to zoecao
zoecao wrote in #note-5:
Triggered the jobs with pvm_hmc machine, will check the results later.
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/overview?distri=sle&version=15-SP6&build=73.1&groupid=251
I think we need much more verification runs of different test suite to consider it.
It would be better that you provide the verification using a loop changing the name of the test suite for each iteration with a post-fixed number, so it is more clear for reviewer to see how many you run it with each test suite without navigating inside and kind of ensure that you did all of them with the same commit.
zoecao wrote in #note-7:
JERiveraMoya wrote in #note-6:
zoecao wrote in #note-5:
Triggered the jobs with pvm_hmc machine, will check the results later.
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/overview?distri=sle&version=15-SP6&build=73.1&groupid=251
I think we need much more verification runs of different test suite to consider it.
It would be better that you provide the verification using a loop changing the name of the test suite for each iteration with a post-fixed number, so it is more clear for reviewer to see how many you run it with each test suite without navigating inside and kind of ensure that you did all of them with the same commit.
Yes, it's better to run more testsuites numbers then re-run one testsuite for several times. I added some more testsuites and triggered the jobs:
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/overview?distri=sle&version=15-SP6&build=73.1&groupid=251
There is a way to run in a loop and change the test suite name, so we can be sure you run all with the same commit, without visually checking it, something like:
for i in {1..10} ; do openqa-clone-custom-git-refspec https://github.com/<your-user>/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/tree/<your-branch> https://<openqa-instance>/tests/<job-id> TEST=<test-name>_$i _SKIP_POST_FAIL_HOOKS=1 ; done
- Subject changed from [Research:8h] Do the research about if we should change to use 'pvm-hmc' instead of 'spvm' to [Research:16h] Do the research about if we should change to use 'pvm-hmc' instead of 'spvm'
- Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
Also available in: Atom
PDF