On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:18:58 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:32:43AM +0200, David Disseldorp wrote: > > Yes, I forgot to mention that, sorry. As Zorro indicated, these were > > done atop the v2022.06.12 tag with the following series applied: > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20220620192934.21694-1-ddiss@xxxxxxx/ > > Got it, thanks. Sorry, I had forgotten that we had the next branch now. > > I'll try to do a full review once I'm able to give the patches a spin. > > > > <testcase classname="xfstests.global" name="generic/476" time="354"> > > > <failure message="Test failed, reason unknown" type="TestFail" /> > > > <system-out> > > > ... > > > </testcase> > > > <testcase classname="xfstests.global" name="generic/476" time="343"> > > > </testcase> > > > <testcase classname="xfstests.global" name="generic/476" time="353"> > > > </testcase> > > > ... > > > > That seems sensible, I'll add this functionality. > > I *think* that should happen automatically when _make_testcase_report > gets called after each iteration. So that might be easier than having > to do any kind of special case handling. (Which is why that was going > to be how I was planning on tackling it before you went ahead and > implemented --- thanks for that!!) It does, but I've messed around with a few things in that code path, so just need to make sure that this works as expected :). It should be working this way in the v2 patchset that I'm about to send... > > > As far as haivng the .bad and .full files, I agree that some kind of > > > .rerun-NN suffix would make a lot of sense. > > > > I had a bit of a play with this and it does get a bit ugly if we want to > > prefix things like .dmesg as well. The xunit rerun entries will already > > capture everything, but I suppose it's still needed for those not using > > xunit reports. > > Well, actually, one of the things on my TODO list was to implement a > new report type which would removed the xunit <system-out> fields from > the xunit file. The reason behind that is sometimes the the > NNN.out.bad files can get huge --- and the Python library for parsing > junit XML files has a safety mechanism which will error out if a field > is larger than 10MB, to prevent some denial of service attacks. And > I've had some XFS NNN.out.bad files get to be 30MB or larger! Ouch, that does sound hard to parse. One thing I also noticed is that a stray "]]>" CDATA terminator in the any of the captured content will likely also cause some parsing headaches, so should be filtered. > When that happens, it causes the Python script I use to parse the XML > file to fail. In addition, since I already have a different mechanism > for saving the full set of test artifiacts ---- sometimes having the > NNN.full file is really useful for root causing the failure --- having > two copies of the out.bad files in both the Xunit file and in my test > artifacts tarball is a bit of a waste. > > I had a POC which implemented this, but then Darrick had a feature > request, since for his workflow, it would be useful if saved only the > first N lines and last N lines in the xunit file, since that's > typically sufficient to figure out what's going on. And I haven't had > a chance to get back to it. Given that the extra debugging details are already there in the current xunit output, I think we may be stuck with them. That said, it should be pretty straightforward to add a new "xunit-brief" or similar report type under the (currently single-purpose) report API. Cheers, David
