On 07/31/2017 09:30 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
Hi Robert,
A few minor comments below.
On Monday, 31 July 2017 11:50:09 AM CEST Robert Yang wrote:
The ptest log will be saved to buildhistory/ptest_log, we can easily get
the regression result between builds by:
$ git show HEAD ptest_log/pass.fail.skip.*
[YOCTO #11547]
Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.y...@windriver.com>
---
meta/classes/buildhistory.bbclass | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
diff --git a/meta/classes/buildhistory.bbclass b/meta/classes/
buildhistory.bbclass
index a3e4c7a734a..26430a63d31 100644
--- a/meta/classes/buildhistory.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/buildhistory.bbclass
@@ -912,3 +912,31 @@ def write_latest_srcrev(d, pkghistdir):
else:
if os.path.exists(srcrevfile):
os.remove(srcrevfile)
+
+do_testimage[postfuncs] += "write_ptest_result"
+do_testimage[vardepsexclude] += "write_ptest_result"
+
+python write_ptest_result() {
+ write_latest_ptest_result(d, d.getVar('BUILDHISTORY_DIR'))
+}
+
+def write_latest_ptest_result(d, histdir):
+ import glob
+ import subprocess
+ test_log_dir = d.getVar('TEST_LOG_DIR')
+ input_ptest_log = os.path.join(test_log_dir, 'ptest_log')
+ output_ptest_log = os.path.join(histdir, 'ptest_log')
Would it be reasonable for this to just be "ptest"? To ask the question a
different way, would you expect to save other types of ptest information into
buildhistory, or is this likely to be it?
I'm not sure atm, so use "ptest" sounds reasonable. I will update it.
+ if os.path.exists(input_ptest_log):
+ # Lock it avoid race issue
+ lock = bb.utils.lockfile(output_ptest_log + "/ptest_log.lock")
+ bb.utils.mkdirhier(output_ptest_log)
+ oe.path.copytree(input_ptest_log, output_ptest_log)
+ # Sort test result
+ for result in glob.glob('%s/pass.fail.*' % output_ptest_log):
+ bb.debug(1, 'Processing %s' % result)
+ cmd = "sort %s -o %s" % (result, result)
+ bb.debug(1, 'Running %s' % cmd)
+ ret = subprocess.call(cmd, shell=True)
As a matter of good practice and since it's easy to do here I'd suggest not
using shell=True and passing the command as a list instead, that way there
can't be any issues with spaces or other shell interpretations.
Thanks, I will update it.
+ if ret != 0:
+ bb.error('Failed to run %s!' % cmd)
+ bb.utils.unlockfile(lock)
Shouldn't you be using try...finally here to ensure the lockfile gets unlocked
in the case of exceptions?
Yes, good idea.
// Robert
Cheers,
Paul
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
