* QA cycle report for 2.4.4 RC1 @ 2018-11-23 3:23 Jain, Sangeeta 2018-11-23 16:07 ` richard.purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Jain, Sangeeta @ 2018-11-23 3:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jolley, Stephen K, Eggleton, Paul, richard.purdie, Graydon, Tracy, Erway, Tracey M, yocto Cc: Kirkiris, Nectar [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 809 bytes --] Hello All, This is the full report for 2.4.4 RC1: https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/WW46_-_2018-11-14_-_Full_Test_Cycle_2.4.4_RC1 Summary All planned tests were executed. Total Test Executed - 3330 Passed Test - 3318 Failed Test - 8 Blocked Test - 4 There were zero high priority defect. Team had found 2 new defects. New Bugs [1] Bug 13033 - [2.4.4RC1] [Bitbake] [Case 142] PR number is not getting increased with remote server/local client mode https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13033 [2]Bug 13038 - [2.4.4RC1][Package Management][Getting Error Message "Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'repository'"] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13038 Thanks & Regards, Sangeeta Jain [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7962 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: QA cycle report for 2.4.4 RC1 2018-11-23 3:23 QA cycle report for 2.4.4 RC1 Jain, Sangeeta @ 2018-11-23 16:07 ` richard.purdie 2018-11-28 7:07 ` Jain, Sangeeta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: richard.purdie @ 2018-11-23 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jain, Sangeeta, Jolley, Stephen K, Eggleton, Paul, Graydon, Tracy, Erway, Tracey M, yocto Cc: Kirkiris, Nectar On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 03:23 +0000, Jain, Sangeeta wrote: > > Hello All, > > This is the full report for 2.4.4 RC1: > https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/WW46_-_2018-11-14_-_Full_Test_Cycle_2.4.4_RC1 > > > Summary > > All planned tests were executed. > > Total Test Executed – 3330 > Passed Test – 3318 > Failed Test – 8 > Blocked Test - 4 > > There were zero high priority defect. Team had found 2 new defects. > > New Bugs > > [1] Bug 13033 - [2.4.4RC1] [Bitbake] [Case 142] PR number is not > getting increased with remote server/local client mode > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13033 > > [2]Bug 13038 - [2.4.4RC1][Package Management][Getting Error Message > "Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'repository'"] > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13038 Thanks for running the QA for this. I do have some questions/observations. Firstly, this report is a little misleading as there are only two bugs mentioned but 8 failures. The full report shows other bugs which were for example reopened or already open. Taking the above bugs first, I believe they're both manual versions of tests which are already automated. I believe the automated tests have passed and there appears to be some kind of problem with the manual execution such as the wrong process being documented. I'm not quite sure why these are being run manually? Was the list of manual tests we received from Intel incorrect? Looking at other bugs in the QA report: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12670 It was reopened as it had been fixed in sumo onwards but not rocko. I've backported the fix to the rocko branch. I don't believe its a release blocker. https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12991 This is webkitgtk failing to build in the build-appliance and looks entirely related to resources in the VM. How this could have worked in the past yet fail now makes me wonder about whether it was in fact tested previously, whether the VM configuration changed or quite what happened. I don't believe its a blocking bug as it does seem to be a VM resource problem, not a real failure or problem with build-appliance. Its hard to tell for sure with the limited data we have though. https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12240 A reopened lsb testing bug but its not really showing problems with the actual image, just testing difficulties. Based on this, I think 2.4.4 is good to be released, I don't see any blocking issues. I would like to understand what tests are actually being run and why though. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: QA cycle report for 2.4.4 RC1 2018-11-23 16:07 ` richard.purdie @ 2018-11-28 7:07 ` Jain, Sangeeta 2018-12-04 15:57 ` richard.purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Jain, Sangeeta @ 2018-11-28 7:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: richard.purdie, Jolley, Stephen K, Eggleton, Paul, Graydon, Tracy, Erway, Tracey M, yocto Cc: Kirkiris, Nectar The test cases run for 2.4.4 RC1 are same as run for 2.4 release. >-----Original Message----- >From: richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> >Sent: Saturday, 24 November, 2018 12:07 AM >To: Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Jolley, Stephen K ><stephen.k.jolley@intel.com>; Eggleton, Paul <paul.eggleton@intel.com>; >Graydon, Tracy <tracy.graydon@intel.com>; Erway, Tracey M ><tracey.m.erway@intel.com>; yocto@yoctoproject.org >Cc: Sangal, Apoorv <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Kirkiris, Nectar ><nectar.kirkiris@intel.com> >Subject: Re: QA cycle report for 2.4.4 RC1 > >On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 03:23 +0000, Jain, Sangeeta wrote: >> >> Hello All, >> >> This is the full report for 2.4.4 RC1: >> >https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/WW46_-_2018-11-14_- >_Full_Test_Cycle_2.4.4_RC1 >> >> >> Summary >> >> All planned tests were executed. >> >> Total Test Executed – 3330 >> Passed Test – 3318 >> Failed Test – 8 >> Blocked Test - 4 >> >> There were zero high priority defect. Team had found 2 new defects. >> >> New Bugs >> >> [1] Bug 13033 - [2.4.4RC1] [Bitbake] [Case 142] PR number is not >> getting increased with remote server/local client mode >> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13033 >> >> [2]Bug 13038 - [2.4.4RC1][Package Management][Getting Error Message >> "Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'repository'"] >> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13038 > >Thanks for running the QA for this. I do have some questions/observations. > >Firstly, this report is a little misleading as there are only two bugs mentioned but 8 >failures. The full report shows other bugs which were for example reopened or >already open. In report, only new bugs are mentioned. All the bugs which are reopened/already existing are not listed in report mail but can be seen in full report. However, if its creating any confusion/inconvenience, going forward I can mention all the failing bugs in report. > >Taking the above bugs first, I believe they're both manual versions of tests which >are already automated. I believe the automated tests have passed and there >appears to be some kind of problem with the manual execution such as the >wrong process being documented. I'm not quite sure why these are being run >manually? Was the list of manual tests we received from Intel incorrect? The list manual test we run for 2.4.4 is same as we run for 2.4 release. This test case is automated later than 2.4 release and is still manual as per 2.4 test plan in Testopia. It's an irony that in Yocto Project we don't have any tracking of a test case converting into automated in which release, and no system that we can update test cases in Dot releases. I am trying to streamline the tracking of test case evolution, so as to avoid such scenarios in future. > >Looking at other bugs in the QA report: > >https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12670 > >It was reopened as it had been fixed in sumo onwards but not rocko. >I've backported the fix to the rocko branch. I don't believe its a release blocker. > >https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12991 > >This is webkitgtk failing to build in the build-appliance and looks entirely related >to resources in the VM. How this could have worked in the past yet fail now >makes me wonder about whether it was in fact tested previously, whether the >VM configuration changed or quite what happened. I don't believe its a blocking >bug as it does seem to be a VM resource problem, not a real failure or problem >with build-appliance. >Its hard to tell for sure with the limited data we have though. > >https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12240 > >A reopened lsb testing bug but its not really showing problems with the actual >image, just testing difficulties. > > >Based on this, I think 2.4.4 is good to be released, I don't see any blocking issues. >I would like to understand what tests are actually being run and why though. > >Cheers, > >Richard > Thanks & Regards, Sangeeta Jain ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: QA cycle report for 2.4.4 RC1 2018-11-28 7:07 ` Jain, Sangeeta @ 2018-12-04 15:57 ` richard.purdie 2018-12-04 17:03 ` Jain, Sangeeta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: richard.purdie @ 2018-12-04 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jain, Sangeeta, Jolley, Stephen K, Eggleton, Paul, Graydon, Tracy, Erway, Tracey M, yocto Cc: Kirkiris, Nectar On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 07:07 +0000, Jain, Sangeeta wrote: > The test cases run for 2.4.4 RC1 are same as run for 2.4 release. Ok, but I'm not sure they're correct. Are the test cases we're talking about also run for the 2.5 release? I'll explain more below. > > Thanks for running the QA for this. I do have some > > questions/observations. > > > > Firstly, this report is a little misleading as there are only two > > bugs mentioned but 8 > > failures. The full report shows other bugs which were for example > > reopened or > > already open. > In report, only new bugs are mentioned. All the bugs which are > reopened/already existing are not listed in report mail but can be > seen in full report. > However, if its creating any confusion/inconvenience, going forward I > can mention all the failing bugs in report. I think it would be useful to have a complete summary of the bugs found, in particular the reopened ones as otherwise it gives a misleading view of the release status. > > Taking the above bugs first, I believe they're both manual versions > > of tests which > > are already automated. I believe the automated tests have passed > > and there > > appears to be some kind of problem with the manual execution such > > as the > > wrong process being documented. I'm not quite sure why these are > > being run > > manually? Was the list of manual tests we received from Intel > > incorrect? > The list manual test we run for 2.4.4 is same as we run for 2.4 > release. This test case is automated later than 2.4 release and is > still manual as per 2.4 test plan in Testopia. It's an irony that in > Yocto Project we don't have any tracking of a test case converting > into automated in which release, and no system that we can update > test cases in Dot releases. I am trying to streamline the tracking of > test case evolution, so as to avoid such scenarios in future. Taking: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13033 as an example, I believe the automated version is: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/prservice.py?h=rocko#n52 which was present in the first 2.4 release. Its also present in pyro: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/prservice.py?h=pyro#n54 and morty: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/prservice.py?h=morty#n51 krogoth: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/prservice.py?h=krogoth#n52 jethro: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/prservice.py?h=jethro#n51 so has been there since at least 2.0. So either I'm wrong about this being an automated version of the test, or we really shouldn't be running this test manually but it isn't a problem of changing test criteria between point releases. I'd also note that nobody from QA has replied to my question in the bugzilla. I'm now worrying about what test cases get run for 2.5 and how these differ from what we run against 2.6 and master and what QA summarised in the recent documentation of test cases exercise. Perhaps we need to document the manual test cases in the 2.5 release too to ensure we have the right set? Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: QA cycle report for 2.4.4 RC1 2018-12-04 15:57 ` richard.purdie @ 2018-12-04 17:03 ` Jain, Sangeeta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Jain, Sangeeta @ 2018-12-04 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: richard.purdie, Jolley, Stephen K, Eggleton, Paul, Graydon, Tracy, Erway, Tracey M, yocto Cc: Kirkiris, Nectar >-----Original Message----- >From: richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> >Sent: Tuesday, 4 December, 2018 11:57 PM >To: Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Jolley, Stephen K ><stephen.k.jolley@intel.com>; Eggleton, Paul <paul.eggleton@intel.com>; >Graydon, Tracy <tracy.graydon@intel.com>; Erway, Tracey M ><tracey.m.erway@intel.com>; yocto@yoctoproject.org >Cc: Sangal, Apoorv <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Kirkiris, Nectar ><nectar.kirkiris@intel.com> >Subject: Re: QA cycle report for 2.4.4 RC1 > >On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 07:07 +0000, Jain, Sangeeta wrote: >> The test cases run for 2.4.4 RC1 are same as run for 2.4 release. > >Ok, but I'm not sure they're correct. Are the test cases we're talking about also >run for the 2.5 release? I'll explain more below. > For 2.5 dot release, we'll run the test cases which we run for 2.5 master release. >> > Thanks for running the QA for this. I do have some >> > questions/observations. >> > >> > Firstly, this report is a little misleading as there are only two >> > bugs mentioned but 8 failures. The full report shows other bugs >> > which were for example reopened or already open. >> In report, only new bugs are mentioned. All the bugs which are >> reopened/already existing are not listed in report mail but can be >> seen in full report. >> However, if its creating any confusion/inconvenience, going forward I >> can mention all the failing bugs in report. > >I think it would be useful to have a complete summary of the bugs found, in >particular the reopened ones as otherwise it gives a misleading view of the >release status. > Sure. >> > Taking the above bugs first, I believe they're both manual versions >> > of tests which are already automated. I believe the automated tests >> > have passed and there appears to be some kind of problem with the >> > manual execution such as the wrong process being documented. I'm not >> > quite sure why these are being run manually? Was the list of manual >> > tests we received from Intel incorrect? >> The list manual test we run for 2.4.4 is same as we run for 2.4 >> release. This test case is automated later than 2.4 release and is >> still manual as per 2.4 test plan in Testopia. It's an irony that in >> Yocto Project we don't have any tracking of a test case converting >> into automated in which release, and no system that we can update test >> cases in Dot releases. I am trying to streamline the tracking of test >> case evolution, so as to avoid such scenarios in future. > >Taking: > >https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13033 > >as an example, I believe the automated version is: > >http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/prse >rvice.py?h=rocko#n52 > >which was present in the first 2.4 release. > >Its also present in pyro: > >http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/prservice. >py?h=pyro#n54 > >and morty: >http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/prservice. >py?h=morty#n51 >krogoth: >http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/prservice. >py?h=krogoth#n52 >jethro: >http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/prservice. >py?h=jethro#n51 > >so has been there since at least 2.0. > >So either I'm wrong about this being an automated version of the test, or we >really shouldn't be running this test manually but it isn't a problem of changing >test criteria between point releases. > >I'd also note that nobody from QA has replied to my question in the bugzilla. > For https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13033 test case has been run manually for 2.4 release as per Testopia data. To answer your question in Bugzilla, we are working on it and will be updated asap. >I'm now worrying about what test cases get run for 2.5 and how these differ from >what we run against 2.6 and master and what QA summarised in the recent >documentation of test cases exercise. Perhaps we need to document the manual >test cases in the 2.5 release too to ensure we have the right set? I am working on identifying the test cases which were automated in 2.6 and master. And the new test case document summarised by QA team should be aligned to latest state of test case, automated or manual. I am also working on documentation of manual test cases for 2.5 and finding which ones are already automated in 2.6, so that we can execute the latest state in next release. > >Cheers, > >Richard Thanks & Regards, Sangeeta Jain ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-12-04 17:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-11-23 3:23 QA cycle report for 2.4.4 RC1 Jain, Sangeeta 2018-11-23 16:07 ` richard.purdie 2018-11-28 7:07 ` Jain, Sangeeta 2018-12-04 15:57 ` richard.purdie 2018-12-04 17:03 ` Jain, Sangeeta
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.