Dne 30.3.2016 v 15:52 Cleber Rosa napsal(a):
On 03/30/2016 09:31 AM, Lukáš Doktor wrote:
Dne 29.3.2016 v 20:25 Cleber Rosa napsal(a):
On 03/29/2016 04:11 AM, Lukáš Doktor wrote:
Dne 28.3.2016 v 21:49 Cleber Rosa napsal(a):
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cleber Rosa" <cr...@redhat.com>
To: "Lukáš Doktor" <ldok...@redhat.com>
Cc: "Amador Pahim" <apa...@redhat.com>, "avocado-devel"
<avocado-devel@redhat.com>, "Ademar Reis" <ar...@redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 4:44:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Avocado-devel] RFC: Multi-host tests
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lukáš Doktor" <ldok...@redhat.com>
To: "Ademar Reis" <ar...@redhat.com>, "Cleber Rosa"
<cr...@redhat.com>,
"Amador Pahim" <apa...@redhat.com>, "Lucas
Meneghel Rodrigues" <look...@gmail.com>, "avocado-devel"
<avocado-devel@redhat.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 4:01:15 PM
Subject: RFC: Multi-host tests
Hello guys,
Let's open a discussion regarding the multi-host tests for avocado.
The problem
===========
A user wants to run netperf on 2 machines. To do it manually he
does:
machine1: netserver -D
machine1: # Wait till netserver is initialized
machine2: netperf -H $machine1 -l 60
machine2: # Wait till it finishes and report store the results
machine1: # stop the netserver and report possible failures
Now how to support this in avocado, ideally as custom tests, ideally
even with broken connections/reboots?
Super tests
===========
We don't need to do anything and leave everything on the user. He is
free to write code like:
...
machine1 = aexpect.ShellSession("ssh $machine1")
machine2 = aexpect.ShellSession("ssh $machine2")
machine1.sendline("netserver -D")
# wait till the netserver starts
machine1.read_until_any_line_matches(["Starting netserver"],
60)
output = machine2.cmd_output("netperf -H $machine1 -l
$duration")
# interrupt the netserver
machine1.sendline("\03")
# verify netserver finished
machine1.cmd("true")
...
the problem is it requires active connection and the user needs to
manually handle the results.
And of course the biggest problem here is that it doesn't solve the
Avocado problem: providing a framework and tools for tests that span
multiple (Avocado) execution threads, possibly on multiple hosts.
Well it does, each "ShellSession" is a new parallel process. The only
problem I have with this design is that it does not allow easy code
reuse and the results strictly depend on the test writer.
Yes, *aexpect* allows parallel execution in an asynchronous fashion. Not
targeted to tests *at all*. Avocado, as a test framework, should deliver
more. Repeating the previous wording, it should be "providing a
framework and tools for tests that span multiple (Avocado) execution
threads, possibly on multiple hosts."
That was actually my point. You can implement multi-host-tests that way,
but you can't share the tests (only include some shared pieces from
libraries).
Right, then not related to Avocado, just an example of how a test writer
could do it (painfully) today.
Triggered simple tests
======================
Alternatively we can say each machine/worker is nothing but yet
another
test, which occasionally needs a synchronization or data-exchange.
The
same example would look like this:
machine1.py:
process.run("netserver")
barrier("server-started", 2)
barrier("test-finished", 2)
process.run("killall netserver")
machine2.py:
barrier("server-started", 2)
self.log.debug(process.run("netperf -H %s -l 60"
% params.get("server_ip"))
barrier("test-finished", 2)
where "barrier(name, no_clients)" is a framework function which
makes
the process wait till the specified number of processes are waiting
for
the same barrier.
The barrier mechanism looks like an appropriate and useful utility
for the
example given. Even though your use case example explicitly
requires it,
it's worth pointing out and keeping in mind that there may be valid
use cases
which won't require any kind of synchronization. This may even be
true to
the executions of tests that spawn multiple *local* "Avocado runs".
Absolutely, this would actually allow Julio to run his "Parallel
(clustered) testing".
So, let's try to identify what we're really looking for. For both the
use case I mentioned and Julio's "Parallel (clustered) testing", we need
a (the same) test run by multiple *runners*. A runner in this context is
something that implements the `TestRunner` interface, such as the
`RemoteTestRunner`:
https://github.com/avocado-framework/avocado/blob/master/avocado/core/remote/runner.py#L37
The following (pseudo) Avocado Test could be written:
from avocado import Test
# These are currently private APIs that could/should be or
# be exposed under another level. Also, the current API is
# very different from what is used here, please take it as
# pseudo code that might look like a future implementation
from avocado.core.remote.runner import RemoteTestRunner
from avocado.core.runner import run_multi
from avocado.core.resolver import TestResolver
from avocado.utils.wait import wait_for
class Multi(Test):
def test(self):
worker1 = RemoteTestRunner('worker1')
worker2 = RemoteTestRunner('worker2')
# Resolve a local test to send it to be run on multiple
machines
test = TestResolver().resolve('bonnie.py')
not actually needed, it's part of the RemoteTestRunner
From the comments: "please take it as pseudo code that might look like
a future implementation".
# run_multi is asynchronous, and results can be queried about
its status
results = run_multi([worker1, worker2], test)
wait_for(results.finished, self.timeout)
Where are the results stored? The RemoteTestRunner only returns json
results, so the user has to do it manually (or we provide yet another
API to store results in-place)
And what prevents us from fetching and including the complete remote job
result? Again: "please take it as pseudo code that might look like a
future implementation".
Sure
# combine remote whiteboard (with performance results) keyed by
worker name
whiteboard = {}
for worker_result in results:
whiteboard[worker_result.name] = worker_result.whiteboard
self.whiteboard = whiteboard
This is sort-of-minimal functional version of your proposal:
```
#!/usr/bin/env python
from avocado import main
from avocado import Test
class PrintCalls(object):
def __getattr__(*args, **kwargs):
def printme(*args2, **kwargs2):
print args, kwargs, args2, kwargs2
return printme
class PassTest(Test):
"""
Example test that passes.
"""
def test(self):
"""
A test simply doesn't have to fail in order to pass
"""
from avocado.core.remote.runner import RemoteTestRunner
from flexmock import flexmock
import threading
import logging
args = args=flexmock(multiplex_files=None, remote_no_copy=False,
remote_username=None,
remote_hostname="127.0.0.1",
remote_password=None, remote_port=None,
remote_timeout=999, show_job_log=None)
This shows that our RemoteTestRunner, and many core functionality
depends heavily on "args", and lack a clear API. Even if it would be
kept internal/core only, it could use a redesign with a clear API. If we
decide to leverage it for other uses (such as inside tests), then those
kind of changes are pretty much mandatory.
I can't agree more. I included this to demonstrate the necessary
workflow (which can be simplified to certain point).
job1 = flexmock(args=args, urls=["passtest", "failtest"],
log=logging,
logdir="/tmp",
unique_id="60eade7a5a9c4df64681c5fbea16818a6bcb2adc")
remote1 = RemoteTestRunner(job1, PrintCalls())
failures = remote1.run_suite(None, None, None, 999)
print failures
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
```
We don't want users to have to write this kind of code, right?
Let's not try to solve the problem based on the code we have. Let's try
to solve the problem with an ideal design, and code that we can write.
Definitely, it was an example of what would be behind the
`self.run_parallel()` and others...
it requires additional work on the logging as currently it only reports
failures, but it should also store per-worker results.
I tried running multiple threads but it resulted into paramiko failures.
You obviously wrote this ugly code because it's *currently* the only way
to make it (almost) work. This is the wrong direction to be using on an
RFC like this. Let's focus on the experience we want to have/give, then
the best way we can deliver it.
Don't focus on the code, look at the overall requirements. That was my
point.
If any kind of synchronization was necessary between workers, the
barrier utility library could be used, maybe even
transparently as part of "run_multi". Parameter passing to tests is also
a layered issue. My point is that this seems to
include the features needed to allow "tests that span multiple
machines".
Does it look reasonable?
A lot of sugar coating can (and should) be added on top. Creating
workers automatically, having a superclass for tests
that span multiple machines, plugins that take worker names directly
from command line options and what not are
likely natural additions.
Your proposal is very similar to the "control" files RFC and the result
is not that different from what I proposed.
[RemoteTestRunner]
Allows people limited set of currently internal API which allows them to
create several jobs inside another job, execute them and then parse
results and report whatever they want to.
[Super test]
Helps people to construct ordinary "avocado run" commands, adds the
results-dirs inside this job, executes them in parallel and reports
pass/fail.
The "RemoteTestRunner" does not exclude the possibility of including the
remote results. In the abstract example I gave, the "results" object can
indeed contain it all. Quoting myself again:
"A lot of sugar coating can (and should) be added on top. Creating
workers automatically, having a superclass for tests that span multiple
machines..."
Sure, I said we just need to deal with that, therefor it's yet another
extensive part of Avocado, which would have to become public, stable and
supported API.
[conclusion]
They both share the same parts, only "RemoteTestRunner" approach uses
(currently) internal API to run the jobs, "Super test" uses command line
(stable+supported) interface known to users.
Let's not try to solve the problems based on the code/architecture we
currently have.
Yep, once again, this was suppose to show the overall dependencies. We
can minimize the number of public API by creating a wrapper to only
support remote avocado execution utilizing the RemoteRunner (to users
basically black box you provide urls, params and allow it to start and
wait for results).
But isn't this exactly the same as providing a wrapper, which does the
same and constructs "avocado run" commands? We also can limit the
supported commands and for brave people add "extra_params" to use
whatever is inside avocado (or to invoke their custom plugins).
I didn't wanted users to really construct the cmdline (unlike in mht).
They were suppose to use the API to run ["passtest", "failtest"] on
machine "foo.com" with some params. The only problem is that the
original RFC had not covered this part as I thought it's to early for
it. Anyway the API will be the same if we choose to use "RemoteRunner"
or "Invoke avocado run", the only difference would be that in first
example the framework would wrap it into internal API and in the later
it'd construct several "avocado run" commands. The result is the same
and while usually I prefer importing and interacting directly, in this
example I'd prefer to spawn the processes.
So to me the "Super test" has only one drawback and that is running yet
another avocado instance. On the contrary it gains the well known
results per each worker inside the results and it depends on interface
we support and keep stable.
It's not clear to me what you mean by "Super test" by now. Originally,
this is what you called super test:
Yep, I'm sorry it was suppose to be the "Advanced tests".
Super tests
===========
We don't need to do anything and leave everything on the user. He is
free to write code like:
...
machine1 = aexpect.ShellSession("ssh $machine1")
machine2 = aexpect.ShellSession("ssh $machine2")
machine1.sendline("netserver -D")
# wait till the netserver starts
machine1.read_until_any_line_matches(["Starting netserver"], 60)
output = machine2.cmd_output("netperf -H $machine1 -l $duration")
# interrupt the netserver
machine1.sendline("\03")
# verify netserver finished
machine1.cmd("true")
But based on your description, it now looks like you mean something
closer to the "MHT" example. Can you shed some light here?
Also note that I think some users will run separate avocado instances
instead of the custom tests (eg. from jenkins, which picks the machines
and you run local avocado instances over multiple machines and the only
thing you use is the --sync to synchronize the execution). So it comes
to me that using the same approach should the best option.
As I said before: "plugins that take worker names directly from command
line options and what not are likely natural additions."
My point here is that the Avocado command line app does not have the
right "API" granularity, simply because it's command line tool, and as
any command line tool, lacks the introspection and communication power
of a proper programming language API. Building this very important
feature on top of the command line *alone* is, besides a layer
violation, a very fragile thing.
My point is that some users might want to not use multi-host tests, but
rather call all the workers directly from other tools (jenkins, beaker,
...). For example I don't have ssh access to some machines I only get
the jenkins-slave ID and I can run avocado locally.
I'm not sure what granularity do you miss. Multi-host test should be
only compound of simple (instrumented) tests put together via some
definition (multi-host-test). I see the benefit of defining them like
simple (instrumented) tests, because that way we promise to people they
can run them whatever way they prefer.
First I wanted to wrap internal APIs, but the more I explored it I
discovered that this API is changing very quickly and we can't make all
APIs public. The alternative is to invoke avocado from the cmdline,
which should be stable and supported and we do even support
machine-readable output of each execution, so avocado is actually built
to support running by machine, so why not to use it that way.
Have you thought that we may find ourselves adding command line options
that wouldn't otherwise benefits users just to accommodate our own needs
to develop the multi host test feature? Would that make sense? This
kind of question shows very clearly at what layer we should be focusing on.
- Cleber.
The barrier needs to know which server to use for communication
so we
can either create a new service, or simply use one of the
executions as
"server" and make both processes use it for data exchange. So to
run the
above tests the user would have to execute 2 avocado commands:
avocado run machine1.py --sync-server machine1:6547
avocado run machine2.py --remote-hostname machine2
--mux-inject
server_ip:machine1 --sync machine1:6547
where:
--sync-server tells avocado to listen on ip address machine1
port 6547
--remote-hostname tells the avocado to run remotely on
machine2
--mux-inject adds the "server_ip" into params
--sync tells the second avocado to connect to machine1:6547
for
synchronization
To be honest, apart from the barrier utility, this provides little
value
from the PoV of a *test framework*, and possibly unintentionally,
competes
and overlaps with "remote" tools such as fabric.
Also, given that the multiplexer is an optional Avocado feature, such
a feature should not depend on it.
It does not, these are only used to demonstrate this particular
feature. You can hardcode the values in the tests, you can use
env-variables or any other feature.
Basically this "mht" format is nothing more, than list of "avocado
run" commands to be executed in parallel and it's focus was on
simplicity, maybe even only for demonstration purposes.
Running those two tests has only one benefit compare to the previous
solution and that is it gathers the results independently and makes
allows one to re-use simple tests. For example you can create a 3rd
test, which uses different params for netperf, run it on "machine2"
and
keep the same script for "machine1". Or running 2 netperf senders
at the
same time. This would require libraries and more custom code when
using
"Super test" approach.
There are additional benefits for this solution. When we introduce
the
locking API, tests running on a remote machine will be actually
directly
executed in avocado, therefor the locking API will work for them,
avoiding problems with multiple tests using the same shared
resource.
Another future benefit would be system reboot/lost connection
when we
introduce this support for individual tests. The way it'd work is
that
user triggers the jobs, the master remembers the test ids and would
poll
for results until they finish/timeout.
All of this we get for free thanks to re-using the existing
infrastructure (or the future infrastructure), so I believe this is
the
right way to go and in this RFC I'm describing details of this
approach.
All of the benefits listed are directly based on the fact that
tests on
remote systems would be run under the Avocado test runner and would
have
it's runtime libraries available. This is a valid point, but
again it
doesn't bring a significant change in the user experience wrt running
tests that span multiple "Avocado runs" (possibly on remote
machines).
Basically this is the key part of this RFC. I like the idea of running
avocado processes for each test, instead of yet another remote
execution handling. The biggest benefit are the test results in well
known format and the possibility to run/combine all the tests
supported by avocado.
Actually I have avocado-in-avocado script in my CI testing, it just
waits for the long-names fix to be applied as it generates too long
test names. But I tested it with the fix and the results are very nice
and easy to analyze as you simply go through results you know from
simple testing.
Triggering the jobs
-------------------
Previous example required the user to run the avocado 2 times (per
each
machine) and sharing the same sync server. Additionally it resulted
into
2 separated results. Let's try to eliminate this problem.
Basic tests
~~~~~~~~~~~
For basic setups, we can come up with very simple format to describe
which tests should be triggered and avocado should take care of
executing it. The way I have in my mind is to simply accept list of
"avocado run" commands:
simple_multi_host.mht:
machine1.py
machine2.py --remote-hostname machine2 --mux-inject
server_ip:machine1
Running this test:
avocado run simple_multi_host.mht --sync-server 0.0.0.0
avocado would pick a free port and start the sync server on it.
Then it
would prepend "avocado run" and append "--sync $sync-server
--job-results-dir $this-job-results" to each line in
"simple_multi_host.mht" and run them in parallel. Afterward it'd
wait
till both processes finish and report pass/fail depending on the
status.
This way users get overall results as well as individual ones and
simple
way to define static setups.
First, the given usage example would require Avocado to introduce:
* A brand new file format
* A new test type (say MULTI_HOST_TEST, in addition to the SIMPLE,
INSTRUMENTED, etc).
Introducing a brand new file format may look like a very simple thing
to do, but it's not. I can predict that we'd learn very quickly that
our original file format definition is very limited. Then we'd
either
have to live with that, or introduce new file format versions, or
just
break the initial definition or compatibility. These are all
problems
related to file formats, not really to your proposed file format.
Then, analogous to the "remote tools (fabric)" example I gave before,
this looks to be outside of the problem scope of Avocado, in the
sense
that "template" tools can do it better.
Introducing a new test type, and a test resolver/loader, would be a
mandatory step to achieve this design, but it looks like a necessary
action only to make the use of "MHT" file format possible.
Please note that having a design that allow users to fire multiple
Avocado command line instances executions in their own scripts is a
bad
thing, but as a test framework, I believe we can deliver a better,
more
focused experience.
I meant "is *not* a bad thing".
I think you have a point here. My idea was to support new-line
separated list of avocado executions as a simple wrapper to run
processes in parallel as it's very simple to develop and it's not
promising anything. It simply takes whatever you hand it over, spawns
multiple processes and gives you results.
Then to add some value I added the --sync handling as it's one
problematic thing. Basically it can be written in a generic way, but I
see your point with hard-to-debug failures or unexpected behavior.
It was meant to be a very simple and easy to understand way to promote
multi-host-testing but it can as well become very painful thing if
people start relying on it. So maybe we should only introduce the real
thing below.
Contrib scripts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The beauty of executing simple lines is, that users might create
contrib
scripts to generate the "mht" files to get even better flexibility.
Since I don't think a new file format and test type is a good thing,
this
also becomes a bad idea IMHO.
Advanced tests
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above might still not be flexible enough. But the system
underneath
is very simple and flexible. So how about creating instrumented
tests,
which generate the setup? The same simple example as before:
multi_host.py
runners = ["machine1.py"]
runners.append("machine2.py --remote-hostname machine2
--mux-inject
server_ip:machine1")
self.execute(runners)
A major plus here is that there's no attempt to define new file
formats,
test types and other items that are necessary only to fulfill a use
case
requirement. Since Avocado's primary language of choice is
Python, we
should stick to it, given that it's expressive enough and well
maintained
enough. This is of course a lesson we learned with Autotest itself,
let's
not forget it.
Then, a couple of things I dislike here:
1) First runner is special/magical (sync server would be run here)
2) Interface with runner execution is done by command line
parameters
Well the 0-st runner is special (the one which executes the
multi-host-instrumented-test). It needs to listen on any free port and
pass this port to all executed tests (if they use barriers/sync).
I'll talk about the 2nd point later....
where the "self.execute(tests)" would take the list and does the
same as
for basic tests. Optionally it could return the json results per
each
tests so the test itself can react and modify the results.
The above was just a direct translation of the previous example,
but to
demonstrate the real power of this let's try a PingPong multi host
test:
class PingPong(MultiHostTest):
def test(self):
hosts = self.params.get("hosts",
default="").split(";")
assert len(hosts) >= 2
runners = ["ping_pong --remote-hostname %s" % _
for _ in hosts]
# Start creating multiplex tree interactively
mux = MuxVariants("variants")
# add /run/variants/ping with {} values
mux.add("ping", {"url": hosts[1], "direction": "ping",
"barrier": "ping1"})
# add /run/variants/pong with {} values
mux.add("pong", {"url": hosts[-1], "direction":
"pong",
"barrier": "ping%s" % len(hosts) +
1})
# Append "--mux-inject mux-tree..." to the first
command
runners[0] += "--mux-inject %s" % mux.dump()
for i in xrange(1, len(hosts)):
mux = MuxVariants("variants")
next_host = hosts[i+1 % len(hosts)]
prev_host = hosts[i-1]
mux.add("pong", {"url": prev_host, "direction":
"pong",
"barrier": "ping%s" % i})
mux.add("ping", {"url": next_host, "direction":
"ping",
"barrier": "ping%s" % i+1})
runners[i] += "--mux-inject %s" % mux.dump()
# Now do the same magic as in basic multihost test on
# the dynamically created scenario
self.execute(runners)
The `self.execute` generates the "simple test"-like list of "avocado
run" commands to be executed. But the test writer can define some
additional behavior. In this example it generates
machine1->machine2->...->machine1 chain of ping-pong tests.
You mean that this would basically generate a "shell script like"
list
of avocado runs? This looks to be a very strong design decision, and
I fail to see how it would lend itself to be flexible enough and
deliver
the "test writer can define some additional behavior" requirement.
Explanation below...
When running "avocado run pingpong --mux-inject
hosts:machine1;machine2"
this generates 2 jobs, both running just a single "ping_pong" test
with
2 multiplex variants:
machine1:
variants: !mux
ping:
url: machine2
direction: pong
barrier: ping1
pong:
url: machine2
direction: pong
barrier: ping2
machine2:
variants: !mux
pong:
url: machine1
direction: pong
barrier: ping1
ping:
url: machine1
direction: ping
barrier: ping2
The first multiplex tree for three machines looks like this:
variants: !mux
ping:
url: machine2
direction: pong
barrier: ping1
pong:
url: machine3
direction: pong
barrier: ping
Btw I simplified the format for the sake of this RFC. I think
instead of
generating the strings we should support API to specify test,
multiplexer, options... and then turn them into the parallel
executed
jobs (usually remotely). But these are just details to be solved
if we
decide to work on it.
This statement completely changes what you have proposed up to this
point.
IMHO it's far from being just details, because that would define the
lowest
and commonest level of this feature set that we would advertise and
support.
The design should really be from this level up, and not from the
opposite
direction.
If external users want to define file formats (say your own MHT
proposal) on
top of our "framework for running tests that span multiple execution
threads"
at once, they should be able to do so.
If you ask me, having sound Avocado APIs that users could use to fire
multiple
portions of their *tests* at once and have their *results* coalesced
into a
single
*test* result is about what Avocado should focus on.
And this was suppose to be the answer. In the end yes, I think it
should generate the "avocado run" command with result-dir based inside
this test's results. The reason is it gives you the results you know
per each worker and they can run independently (survive the network
issues, system reboots when we add the support for it in avocado)
This would really be an implementation detail of the chosen runner. The
current remote runner actually run Avocado, but that's its
(RemoteTestRunner) own internal design decision. It does have a lot of
pluses, but that is not the focus of this conversation. Another runner,
say, ThinTestRunner, could choose to do things differently.
Having said that, I completely agree that we should, unless proven
wrong, reuse the RemoteTestRunner for multi-host tests.
The alternative is to create a client worker, which executes code on
demand, but that's more complex and it'd double the effort if we
decide to support system reboots/connection issues.
Agreed. Having an agent/broker on the remote side does not seem to be
necessary or beneficial at this point.
What this paragraph was about is that it should not probably directly
generate the arguments, but we should define an API which adds
individual pieces of information and is translated into the command at
the end.
I decided not to go into details here as I thought it's better to
focus on part1 (--sync --sync-server) which already has a proof of
concept version out there. Then I wanted to create the "mht" file,
which would demonstrate how the results could look like, and how it
all goes together and when we have those results and issues, we can
introduce the instrumented-test API which would evolve from the
real-world issues.
Results and the UI
==================
The idea is, that the user is free to run the jobs separately, or to
define the setup in a "wrapper" job. The benefit of using the
"wrapper"
job are the results in one place and the `--sync` handling.
The difference is that running them individually looks like this:
1 | avocado run ping_pong --mux-inject url:192.168.1.58:6001
--sync-server
1 | JOB ID : 6057f4ea2c99c43670fd7d362eaab6801fa06a77
1 | JOB LOG :
/home/medic/avocado/job-results/job-2016-01-22T05.33-6057f4e/job.log
1 | SYNC : 0.0.0.0:6001
1 | TESTS : 1
1 | (1/1) ping_pong: \
2 | avocado run ping_pong --mux-inject :url::6001
direction:pong
--sync 192.168.1.1:6001 --remote-host 192.168.1.1
2 | JOB ID : 6057f4ea2c99c43670fd7d362eaab6801fa06a77
2 | JOB LOG :
/home/medic/avocado/job-results/job-2016-01-22T05.33-6057f4e/job.log
2 | TESTS : 1
2 | (1/1) ping_pong: PASS
1 | (1/1) ping_pong: PASS
and you have 2 results directories and 2 statuses. By running them
wrapped inside simple.mht test you get:
avocado run simple.mht --sync-server 192.168.122.1
JOB ID : 6057f4ea2c99c43670fd7d362eaab6801fa06a77
JOB LOG :
/home/medic/avocado/job-results/job-2016-01-22T05.33-6057f4e/job.log
TESTS : 1
(1/1) simple.mht: PASS
RESULTS : PASS 1 | ERROR 0 | FAIL 0 | SKIP 0 | WARN 0 |
INTERRUPT 0
TIME : 0.00 s
And single results:
$ tree $RESULTDIR
└── test-results
└── simple.mht
├── job.log
...
├── 1
│ └── job.log
...
└── 2
└── job.log
...
tail -f job.log:
running avocado run ping pong ping pong
running avocado run pong ping pong ping --remote-hostname
192.168.122.53
waiting for processes to finish...
PASS avocado run ping pong ping pong
FAIL avocado run pong ping pong ping --remote-hostname
192.168.122.53
this job FAILED
I won't spend much time here, since the UI is bound to follow other
design
ideas/decisions.
Sure, the important part here is the results format.
Demonstration
=============
While considering the design I developed a WIP example. You can
find it
here:
https://github.com/avocado-framework/avocado/pull/1019
It demonstrates the `Triggered simple tests` chapter without the
wrapping tests. Hopefully it helps you understand what I had in
mind. It
contains modified "examples/tests/passtest.py" which requires 2
concurrent executions (for example if you want to test your server
and
run multiple concurrent "wget" connections). Feel free to play with
it,
change the number of connections, set different barriers, combine
multiple different tests...
Autotest
========
Avocado was developed by people familiar with Autotest, so let's
just
mention here, that this method is not all that different from
Autotest
one. The way Autotest supports parallel execution is it let's
users to
create the "control" files inside the multi-host-control-file and
then
run those in parallel. For synchronization it contains master->slave
barrier mechanism extended of SyncData to send pickled data to all
registered runners.
I considered if we should re-use the code, but:
1. we do not support control files, so I just inspired by passing
the
params to the remote instances
One of the wonderful things about Autotest control files is that
it's not a custom file format. This can not be underestimated.
While
other frameworks have had huge XML based file formats to drive their
jobs, Autotest control files are infinitely more capable and their
readability is a lot more scalable.
The separation of client and server test types (and control files) is
actually what prevents control files from nearing perfection IMHO.
Yep
The server API allows you to run client control files on given hosts.
These client control files usually need tweaking for each host. Then
you're suddenly doing code generation (control files Python code).
That
is not nice.
The tests I saw usually generated simple "runTest" with different
params. So what I'm proposing is actually similar, let's run avocado
and allow params passing.
I believe that, if Avocado provides such an API that allows regular
Python
code to operate similarly to server control files, while giving more
control
and granularity to what is run on the individual job executions (say
on remote machines), and help to coalesce the individual portions
into a
single test result, it would be a very attractive tool.
I think the multi-host test should only pick existing normal tests and
run the set of tests they need to perform the task using barriers to
synchronize it.
Actually there is one thing which is significantly limiting the usage
and that's the multiplexer. I'd like to run:
"avocado run boot migrate recievemigrate migrate recievemigrate
shutdown" tests and use different params for each tests. Currently
this is not possible and it's something I'd been proposing all the
time. (mapping params to individual tests).
Anyway even without this mapping we can do all kinds of setups and
when we add such feature we can always start using it in
multi-host-testing as multi-host-testing is just triggering
avocado-jobs in terms of this RFC so all features available in avocado
are available to each worker in multi-host-testing.
PS: The multiplexer is not needed for multi-host-tests, you're free to
hard-code the values inside tests or to use whatever way to tell the
test what it should do. The barriers are using the server from
"--sync" cmdline argument so the test is the only component which
might need to be parametric.
I will, on purpose, not explore the parameter passing problems until we
are more or less on the same page about the bare bones of "running a
test that span multiple machines". Then we can explore this optional but
very important aspect.
2. the barriers and syncdata are quite hackish, master->slave
communication. I think the described (and demonstrated) approach
does
the same in a less hackish way and is easy to extend
Using this RFC we'd be able to run autotest-multi-host tests, but
it'd
require rewriting the control files to "mht" (or contrib) files.
It'd be
probably even possible to write a contrib script to run the control
file
and generate the "mht" file which would run the autotest test.
Anyway
the good think for us is, that this does not affect "avocado-vt",
because all of the "avocado-vt" multi-host tests are using a single
"control" file, which only prepares the params for simple avocado-vt
executions. The only necessary thing is a custom "tests.cfg" as by
default it disallows multi-host tests (or we can modify the
"tests.cfg"
and include the filter inside the "avocado-vt" loader, but these are
just the details to be sorted when we start running avocado-vt
multi-host tests.
Conclusion
==========
Multi-host testing was solved many times in the history. Some
hardcode
tests with communication, but most framework I had seen support
triggering "normal/ordinary" tests and add some kind of barrier
(either
inside the code or between the tests) mechanism to synchronize the
execution. I'm for the flexibility and easy test sharing and that
is how
I described it here.
Kind regards,
Lukáš
_______________________________________________
Avocado-devel mailing list
Avocado-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/avocado-devel
_______________________________________________
Avocado-devel mailing list
Avocado-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/avocado-devel
