* Michael Goldish <mgoldish@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-03-12 02:26]: > > > > Regarding the stepfiles you created for Linux -- I can't help much > > > with those since I don't have the data. I do believe that if I had > > the > > > data and the stepfiles I could quickly identify the problem, so if > > you > > > think those can be sent to us, I'd like to have them. > > > > I created a stepfile for RHEL5 and what I'm seeing is that one of the > > screens I captured in stepmaker ended up having a focus ring around > > something and on replay the focus isn't there. This situation isn't > > something that a new algo will fix as you pointed out. I'm wondering > > if > > this is something you've seen. I don't quite understand how it would > > happen since stepmaker and the replace send the same keystrokes. I > > also > > don't see how in general this can be avoided. > > The problem sounds familiar. Does the ring appear around one of the > GNOME menubars, i.e. around "Applications" or "System"? GNOME seems to > be somewhat indeterministic with those rings. If you run the stepfile > several times, you'll notice that in most cases you'll see a focus > ring (or no focus ring, I don't quite remember) and the rest of the > time you'll get the other case. Ding Ding Ding! =) > > This can be avoided either with experience, or a good wiki entry on > picking the right barriers (which we plan to create). But you don't > have to avoid making mistakes with stepmaker -- most types of mistakes > are fixed very quickly and easily with stepeditor. yep, used stepeditor to fix; defintely worth documenting where one should be invoking stepeditor -- from the steps dir; if you don't run it from there, it won't find the steps_data dir =( > > The fix depends on exactly what you were trying to do: > > - If you sent "alt-f1" to open the menu, and in the following step > picked the open menu (including the "Applications" caption itself) to > make sure it was open -- use stepeditor to modify the barrier so that > it doesn't include the "Applications" caption or anything that might > have a ring around it. That worked for me. > > The following text was copied from your previous e-mail: > > > I do have the debug dir data from these runs. Looking at the cropped > > ppm and screendump ppm is how I determined that there must be > > something > > wrong with how the image is rendered since the cropped ppm matches > > the > > screendump output, but with whatever subtle difference that generates > > a > > different md5sum. > > I'm not sure my previous e-mail was clear enough, so just in case it > wasn't, let me rephrase: The cropped ppm is generated from the > screendump ppm every time the stepfile running module receives a > screendump from the guest in order to see if it matches a barrier. > This is done for debugging purposes. If you somehow check, you'll see > there is no subtle difference between those two files. It wouldn't > make sense to find a subtle difference between them, and if you did > find one, it certainly wouldn't indicate a stepfile problem, but > rather a very strange bug in the framework. You should be looking for > subtle differences between the screendump ppm and the reference > screendump ppm, as well as between the cropped screendump ppm and the > reference cropped screendump ppm. By "reference" I mean coming from > the stepmaker data. If you don't have the stepmaker data, you have no > way of knowing what caused the difference in the md5sums. Right -- the real win was comparing the full screendump to the reference screendump - basically, without the reference dumps, the debug output isn't useful. I'll have to go back and re-read your email on where to put the reference ppm files so one gets the refrence comparision. > > > There are two other things I forgot to mention in my previous e-mail: > > The Windows failures you're seeing might be caused by KVM bugs other > than the one I mentioned. KVM-84 has a very strong tendency to crash > during Windows installations. You can use the logs to find out if that > happened in your case. If you have the latest git HEAD the exception > info will look something like "Barrier timed out at step ... (VM is > dead)", and if you have a slightly older version, you'll probably see > "(guest is stuck)" at the end of the info string. You should also see > the system consistently complaining that it can't fetch any > screendumps from the guest (this will appear in stdout). I've seen those on kvm-84. > The other thing has to do with the ISO files. kvm_runtest has a very > important feature that we innocently forgot to implement in > kvm_runtest_2 -- md5sum verification of the ISO files. This means that > the framework currently makes no use of the "md5sum" and "md5sum_1m" > parameters in the config file. This means you might be using different > ISOs than the ones we made our stepfiles with. In that case I wouldn't > expect any stepfile to succeed. However, if you used these same ISOs > with kvm_runtest then they should be fine. In any case, I'll add the > feature ASAP to the git repository. Right - I suppose it might be better if the names of the windows iso disks matched how MS names them in MSDN, for example, kvm_runtest refers to Windows2008-x64.iso which doesn't match any name from MSDN, what we have is: en_windows_server_2008_datacenter_enterprise_standard_x64_dvd_X14-26714.iso -- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center IBM Corp., Austin, Tx ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
