W dniu 16.02.2011 11:22, Mirsad Vojnikovic pisze:
Zygmunt has already identified key points for Job Dispatcher to support
this, but one thing I would like to comment:
Another crazy option would be to expose LAVA Job Dispatcher directly
and allow people to run jobs. In this case one job would use abrek
and some other tools to invoke tests, process results and send them
to the dashboard while other job (one for android) would not run
abrek at all, instead it would call some other helper, while still
reusing identical components for "process results and send to result
storage" phases. This is still in flux but has some advantages:
0) Jobs are simple text files that can be stored and shared with others
1) Jobs can encapsulate device information like which android device
to connect to and how.
2) Jobs can still "call" to other parts of the LAVA stack such as
result submission
3) Jobs can be extended locally (by LAVA plugins) so that anyone can
develop specialized use cases for their very specific needs without
altering the stack or having to write something completely custom.
I think exposing Job Dispatcher directly would not be a good idea for
validation farm, where test jobs are queued for execution via Scheduler
(see LAVA architecture). Bypassing the job queue on the Dispatcher level
should only be allowed in exceptional cases, i.e. canceling jobs for
server/board update or similar. There might be scenarios where the
unrestricted direct control is desirable, but that should be only
allowed for local development environments.
Hi Mirsad.
I must have missed this part of your email, sorry for responding so
late. My intention was not to expose the dispatcher for farm users but
for generic higher-level abrek replacement.
In this case one could develop and experiment with jobs using their
favorite text editor and a command line tool that effectively dispatches
a job on a locally connected device (android or "classic" board). This
would allow us to write custom code that is not yet in the released LAVA
stack that can interact with a new class of device properly, like in our
case, android.
It would be good to have this specified/discussed somewhere already now,
maybe in the Dispatcher blueprint, or maybe we need additional blueprint
or wiki spec for it?
I think this can wait until we 1) have resources that can be committed
to do this 2) agree on what to do with android+abrek+lava in general.
Best regards
ZK
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
