It's OK to log the debug output when running the framework, but Ryan says he makes heavy use of kvm_config.py, which means he may not find this comfortable enough. Ryan, what do you think? Another option is to allow editing any file from the web GUI in addition to the control file. I don't think it'll be hard to parse the control file and automatically extract config code from it in order to debug it, but it will almost certainly be very ugly. We might want to consider writing a little program that will emulate the client/bin/autotest.py program, running the control file and providing it with a fake job object whose run_test() method will just print the params dict instead of running the test. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues <lmr@xxxxxxxxxx> To: Ryan Harper <ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Michael Goldish <mgoldish@xxxxxxxxxx>, autotest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, uril@xxxxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:47:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Autotest] [PATCH] [RFC] KVM test: Major control file cleanup Ryan, Michael: I absolutely agree that the ability to debug stuff is important, but the ability to make things straightforward to use from the web interface or cli is also important. A longer term goal is to have our test farm and make any developer able to schedule a job on the test farm easily and conveniently. Having the dictionaries generated on the job debug directory seems like a good compromise to me. Also we can come up with a smart way of parsing the config file generated by a given control file in a similar way we do today with kvm_config.py, it shouldn't be that hard to do it... (I hope I won't burn my tongue with this statement). Thanks for your input! On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Ryan Harper <ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Michael Goldish <mgoldish@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-10-28 10:43]: >> >> ----- "Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues" <lmr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > One thing that just occurred to me is, if we have a test config >> > "library" as you said, it's perfectly possible to put the actual test >> > set definitions and other config files inside the control file as >> > strings. This way one can control configuration inside the control >> > file, >> > making it more convenient for usage, let's say, inside the autotest >> > web >> > interface. Since the control file would be reduced in size, the >> > configuration snippets being in the control file would not be a huge >> > problem, while keeping the original autotest philosophy of keeping >> > stuff inside the control file... What do you think? >> >> Sounds great, except it won't allow you to debug your configuration >> using kvm_config.py. So the question now is what's more important -- >> the ability to debug or ease of use when running from the server. > > +1 debug > > When creating new test scenarios I make *heavy* use of kvm_config.py; > I'd be lost without being able to debug test configuration files. > > -- > Ryan Harper > Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center > IBM Corp., Austin, Tx > ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ > Autotest mailing list > Autotest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest > -- Lucas -- 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
