From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Sony.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-Sony-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=IoBWAEPgI5HTn5IGohHyn3oTFgMxATNX32gltXbbxN0=; b=Hh1ZZJYNxnor+9kYtAt8azqMY+C1t6MaGZ/j36MEsbKUvHBduVO/rdWmXOaBZsrRdj/YeaqU04EbDznuXOwZ24M77VAHIcnjeVgXY5dMQ05+8ZK4T0jpDwjvlzAyfLKhaQuz9kTCDkAzfsww73c3qr7y8R6dJ2t7NUqIcs0W+XA= From: "Bird, Timothy" Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 01:15:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1513154537-11933-1-git-send-email-daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <1513154537-11933-1-git-send-email-daniel.sangorrin@toshiba.co.jp> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Fuego] LTP: fix the spreadsheet parser script List-Id: Mailing list for the Fuego test framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Daniel Sangorrin , "fuego@lists.linuxfoundation.org" > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Sangorrin on Wednesday, December 13, 2017 12:42 AM > I noticed that the rtonly spec was failing because it just produces > an rt.log but no spreadsheet. The following patches fix that. Thanks - this is good stuff. > [PATCH 1/2] LTP:ltp_process: dont crash if no sheets are generated > [PATCH 2/2] LTP:ltp_process: parse the rt.log into a new sheet >=20 > I am planning to focus on improving LTP soon, please let me know if > you are going to work on it as well to avoid collisions. Also if you > have any ideas about what you want to have changed in LTP let me know. I don't plan on working on LTP in the short term. Feel free to improve thi= ngs, as it's currently kind of a mess. I think it might be good to convert LTP back into separate tests: Functional.LTP-posix, Functional.LTP-core, Functional.LTP-realtime. They would share some common base functions, like netperf or OpenSSL. I'd have to revisit the build-directory sharing that I worked on recently, but I think this is needed. One issue I'm seeing is that with all the different specs, it's almost impossible to settle in on a criteria.json file that covers them. This is true for other tests, but muc= h more so for super-tests like LTP, where the spec can have it run basically an entire different test suite. Let me know what you think. Thanks for the patches. -- Tim