Hey Ara I agree with Brendan here. Copying this will quickly pull in checkbox-support thus it will nullify any value in remotely testing under-development version of your code. For use cases like Ubuntu touch that's not a problem as they don't use any of our scripts.
Thanks ZK On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Ara Pulido <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 28/02/14 03:04, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Sylvain Pineau > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > On 27/02/2014 17:11, Daniel Manrique wrote: > > > > On 14-02-26 12:46 PM, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote: > > > > > > Execution controllers > > --------------------- > > > > Execution controllers that prepare the environment for each > > job would > > necessarily change. Existing set of controllers can run jobs > > as the regular > > user, as a root user via sudo or as a root user via > > plainbox-trusted-launcher-1. > > > > In addition to user handing, those controllers handle the > > task of configuring > > the filesystem for a specific job. The new remote controller > > would need to > > ensure that provider data associated with the job that is to > > be executed is > > copied (using rsync or adb push or other similar command). > > > > > > > > > > This suggests you will copy only relevant data for each test. > > Can this be > > determined reliably without too many hairy heuristics? will we > > need to add more > > metadata to jobs or scripts so that a remote environment can be > > properly configured? > > > > Another approach that comes to mind is copying *everything* > > (where "everything" > > needs to be determined) when the first remote job executes, so > > subsequent jobs > > can count on stuff being there. This would be handled by the > > execution > > controller I think. > > > > One of the execution controller future role will also be to detect > > program/scripts that have to be run locally > > but are part of the job command, e.g: "run_this_on_target | > > parse_output_with_local___parser" > > Several local jobs are using this method taking the output of a > > remote command and doing some magic to > > create jobs with run_template+udev_resource. > > > > > > > > This is an interesting point. Technically (currently) that would all run > > remotely. We would copy all of the scripts (including udev_resource) and > > run that there. I see that we might want to run certain parts locally. > > Fortunately that is easy to express (though it would require us to alter > > jobs that want the distinction). > > > > id: some-job > > command: foo > > post-process: bar > > I wouldn't like to make this more complex if it is not fully needed. > What's the problem in copying udev_resource (i.e.) in the target? > > Thanks, > Ara. > > > > > This would effectively run: "adb -s $target shell foo | bar", or "ssh > > $target shell foo | bar" > > > > What do you think? > > > > Thanks > > ZK > > > > > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~checkbox-dev > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~checkbox-dev > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~checkbox-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~checkbox-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
