Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 84080 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2007 11:27:05 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Jan 2007 11:27:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 23925 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jan 2007 11:27:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 23895 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jan 2007 11:27:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 23886 invoked by uid 99); 29 Jan 2007 11:27:07 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:27:07 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of ivavladimir@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.174 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.174] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:26:59 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z36so1019431uge for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:26:38 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=KMvDjmPlSIj3qSnUyoIJEIXOrCMh273Ld/Q4KTKXqGA9jHXaZDJoG6fRM497gqF0tEmImKrDV7xmCsC9cXzKOCdEj24zXYI1BHUcS/d4NAFmXPirBiplV9S3SzU9fOEu///wAwhPH7RPKqBkKEWFyuT4duM0DWSSGXAjjMzBblY= Received: by 10.78.157.8 with SMTP id f8mr4033731hue.1170069997690; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:26:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.145.6 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:26:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7273946b0701290326s34054e21ve97d91d28264438c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:26:37 +0600 From: "Vladimir Ivanov" To: dev@harmony.apache.org Subject: Re: [testing][cruise-control] how testing infrastructure should be improved In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_64439_24653394.1170069997655" References: <7273946b0701260350x7ba25a8eu4303028a13188133@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_64439_24653394.1170069997655 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 1/26/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > > Created jira should be integrated to the buildtest infrastructure and > > buildtest module should be extended by different application > > scenario tests, > > reliability tests etc. In general case we will have a long CC cycle > > (up to 1 > > week J ) and results of this runs should be processed with other > > procedure > > (for example, results should be upload to harmonytest.org and than > > jira > > issues should be created for all failures). > > Right - we should probably try to define what we mean by "short", > "medium" and "long" scenarios, and I suggest: > > 1) what we have now (build and unit test drlvm, classlib) as the > "short" cycle for fast failure notification > > 2) test classlib w/ drlvm and J9 + the iterative test cycle as the > "medium" cycle > > 3) everything you talk about above as the "long" cycle OK. One minor note, some time ago on the dev@ list somebody ask to add 'server jit' mode. Is it OK to add it to the current CC ('short' cycle)? > > > > > It requires some 'standard' interface for all integrated scripts. I > > like > > classlib interface so how about: > > - call of "ant setup;ant" will run all available scripts; > > - call of "ant -Dmodule=3Dhit setup;ant" will run current version of > > CC =96 > > Harmony integration tests; > > - call of "ant -Dmodule=3Deut setup;ant" will run Eclipse unit test > > etc. > > > > > Note, in this case each module should implement proper 'setup' > > target and > > has configuration for CC. The root-script will iterate over all > > modules to > > call their 'setup' and this setup should include whole test setup > > (downloading software, adding modules cc-configuration to working > > configuration etc). > > > > Is it OK? > > I dunno - this sounds like disjoint and separate CC runs, rather than > a CC run with multiple projects. > > For example, I'd like to have a set of "modules", which would be > incomplete cc config files, that somehow get glommed into a bigger cc > file - maybe the config.xml would have some kind of include mechanism. > > Suppose that we have : > > trunk/cc/ > config.xml > modules/ > default_module.xml > hut_module.xml > eut_module.xml > iterative_module.xml > dacapo_module.xml > specjbb_module.xml > short_module.xml > medium_module.xml > long_modules.xml > > so then I could do : > > $ ant > > to get what we have now - runs the default module - or > > $ ant -Dmodules=3Dhut,eut,dacapo > > to run those... > > Something like "medium_module.xml" would look like (the following is > 'psuedo-code') : > > > > > > so that you can nest this as you want. > > > > > If nobody objects I'll start restructuring of buildtest module and > > will try > > to integrate one from extensions. > > Please describe how you want to do it. I think about following option: in the root file we have predefined string. Something like 'modules=3Dhut'. In the 'long' mode CC will iterate over all entries. The medium cycle depend on users wishes and defined through the command line like: 'ant -Dmodules=3Dhut,iterative'. Each module has predefi= ned target (for example, 'setup'). In this target script should download all software, apply all patches, add module configuration to the current CC configuration (just copy content of the module configuration file to the en= d of current configuration) etc. After 'ant <...> setup' we will have ready-to-run system with user-defined configuration. > > > > > > Thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > > > PS I think the resulting structure should be easy to extend and may > > looks > > like this: > > > > buildtest > > > > |--config (default CC configuration to build classlib and DRLVM) > > > > |--hit (CC configuration to run Harmony classlib&DRLVM tests) > > > > |--eclipse > > > > |-- eut (setup and CC configuration to run eclipse non-interactive > > tests) > > > > |-- eclipse3.1.1 > > > > |-- some scenario > > > > |-- build.xml (common setup + call of module's 'setup') > > > Interesting. I think one issue is that it seems like heavy lifting > to add a new module - each module becomes a "peer". What do you > think of the other approach above? > > Either way, we don't want hit, eclipse, etc as peers. If anything, > they should go in a modules/ directory... For each module we have at least 2 files: cc-config and build file. But in some cases we will have some additional files (patches etc). For example, script for testing of JEdit application (issue 3012) has about 15 files. For me is better to store all staff in one place instead of having parallel structure. thanks, Vladimir geir > > ------=_Part_64439_24653394.1170069997655--