On 7 February 2011 02:05, David Gilbert <david.gilb...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 4 February 2011 21:53, Paul Larson <paul.lar...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Mirsad, I'm looking at the recent edits to > > https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Validation/Specs/ValidationSchedulerand > > wanted to start a thread to discuss. Would love to hear thoughts from > > others as well. > > > > We could probably use some more in the way of implementation details, but > > this is starting to take shape pretty well, good work. I have a few > > comments below: > > > >> Admin users can also cancel any scheduled jobs. > > Job submitters should be allowed to cancel their own jobs too, right? > > > > I think in general, the user stories need tweaking. Many of them center > > around automatic scheduling of jobs based on some event (adding a > machine, > > adding a test, etc). Based on the updated design, this kind of logic > would > > be in the piece we were referring to as the driver. The scheduler > shouldn't > > be making those decisions on its own, but it should provide an interface > for > > both humans to schedule jobs (web, cli) as well as and api for machines > > (driver) to do this. > > I'd like to add as user stories: > Dave wants to rerun a test on a particular machine to see if a > failure is machine specific. > An initial idea we had was to run jobs based on machine type, i.e. BeagleBoard, not on a particular machine, i.e. BeagleBoard_ID001. The dispatcher would choose on which particular machine to run, depending on availability. I understand your point when running on a particular machine is desirable, but maybe this feature should be enabled for admins trying to track a deviating hardware? Or maybe this is a user story for dashboard, to have a feature comparing and presenting results from all machines of the same type, or even in broader aspect for chosen/all machine types we support? Dave wants to run the same test on a set of machines to compare the > results. > This is almost same as first. Maybe the better solution, as I wrote above, is to go to dashboard and compare all the existing results there instead? This assumes of course that there are results already reported for wanted hardware, which I think would be a case if looking at weekly execution intervals, but probably not daily. What do you think, is this reasonable enough or am I missing something important? > I'd also like for there to be history available for each machine stuff > has run on; e.g. knowing > that a machine has just been reinstalled or been updated might help > you understand a failure. > Exactly, I agree. I think this will be solved by the dispatcher when reporting test results to the dashboard. The results in the dashboard should include that information, and even keep history, so I guess it is only to present the information in the desirable format. > Dave > Thanks for your comments Dave!
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
