Hi Daniel, On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 9:42 AM Daniel Winkler <danielwinkler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello Luiz, > > Thank you for the information. It is good to know that this tool is > actively used and that there is a way to skip existing flaky tests. > Just for clarification, is this a requirement to land the kernel > changes, i.e. should I prioritize adding these tests immediately to > move the process forward? Or can we land the changes based on the > testing I have already done and I'll work on these tests in parallel? We used to require updates to mgmt-tester but it seems some of recent command did not have a test yet, but if we intend to have the CI to tests the kernel changes properly I think we should start to requiring it some basic testing, obviously it will be hard to cover everything that is affected by a new command but the basic formatting, etc, we should be able to test, also tester supports the concept of 'not run' which we can probably use for experimental commands. > Thanks, > Daniel > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:04 PM Luiz Augusto von Dentz > <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 3:25 PM Daniel Winkler <danielwinkler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Luiz, > > > > > > Thank you for the feedback regarding mgmt-tester. I intended to use > > > the tool, but found that it had a very high rate of test failure even > > > before I started adding new tests. If you have a strong preference for > > > its use, I can look into it again but it may take some time. These > > > changes were tested with manual and automated functional testing on > > > our end. > > > > > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > > > Total: 406, Passed: 358 (88.2%), Failed: 43, Not Run: 5 > > > > Looks like there are some 43 tests failing, we will need to fix these > > but it should prevent us to add new ones as well, you can use -p to > > filter what tests to run if you want to avoid these for now. -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
