On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 03:05:43PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Although "testcase" tags contain the "timestamp" element, for day-0
> testing it can be hard to relate the timestamp to the tested kernel
> version.
>
> Thus this patch will add a "kernel" element to the "testcase" tag, to
> indicate the kernel version we're running.
> Paired with CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO=y config, it will easily show the
> kernel commit we're testing.
>
> Since we're here, also add a "arch" element, as there are more and more
> aarch64 boards (From RK3399 to Apple M1) able to finish fstests in an
> acceptable duration, we can no longer assume x86_64 as our only
> platform.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> common/report | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/common/report b/common/report
> index 4a747f8d..92586527 100644
> --- a/common/report
> +++ b/common/report
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ _xunit_make_section_report()
> date_time=$(date +"%F %T")
> fi
> local stats="failures=\"$bad_count\" skipped=\"$notrun_count\" tests=\"$tests_count\" time=\"$sect_time\""
> - local hw_info="hostname=\"$HOST\" timestamp=\"${date_time/ /T}\" "
> + local hw_info="hostname=\"$HOST\" timestamp=\"${date_time/ /T}\" arch=\"$(uname -m)\" kernel=\"$(uname -r)\""
> echo "<testsuite name=\"xfstests\" $stats $hw_info >" >> $REPORT_DIR/result.xml
The original commit that added this report format was f9fde7db2f
("report: Add xunit format report generator"). Dmitry Monakhov's commit
message points out that the xml being emitted was "xunit/junit":
Footnotes:
[1] https://xunit.github.io/docs/format-xml-v2.html
[2] http://help.catchsoftware.com/display/ET/JUnit+Format
The first link is now dead, but the second link contains enough
information to find the current junit xml format:
[1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/windyroad/JUnit-Schema/master/JUnit.xsd
Note that the xunit project appears to have diverged their report
format:
[2] https://xunit.net/docs/format-xml-v2
(Or perhaps there were multiple things called xunit?)
Either way, it's pretty obvious from common/report code that the "xunit"
code is still emitting junit xml files. I think it's important that
fstests should continue to follow that schema, so that these files can
be fed into test dashboards (yes I have one) that consume this file
format.
Regrettably, the schema does not provide for @arch or @kernel attributes
hanging off the <testsuite> element, so it's not a good idea to add
things that a strict parser could reject.
That said, I think it's important to record the architecture and kernel.
Probably even more attributes than that. The junit xml schema provides
for arbitrary string properties to be attached to reports; would you
mind putting these there instead?
(I want to add a few more properties now that people have started
talking about reporting again... ;))
# Properties
echo -e "\t<properties>" >> $REPORT_DIR/result.xml
echo -e "\t\t<property name=\"arch\" value=\"$(uname -m)\"/>" >> $REPORT_DIR/result.xml
echo -e "\t\t<property name=\"kernel\" value=\"$(uname -r)\"/>" >> $REPORT_DIR/result.xml
for p in "${REPORT_ENV_LIST[@]}"; do
_xunit_add_property "$p"
done
echo -e "\t</properties>" >> $REPORT_DIR/result.xml
--D
>
> # Properties
> --
> 2.38.0
>
