Hi Richard,
> "I was thinking about this and whilst I'm guessing, it could be because we're
> running this in a CI environment that doesn't have an interactive terminal?"
1. The error is in the "check_screen_size", where it attempts to insure that
the terminal windows is at least 83x26. According to the log, it (a) does start
the screen, (b) it does find that the terminal is too small, but then (c) it
_oddly_ crashes on the "curses.endwin()" where it tries to return to a normal
terminal and provide a graceful error message.
2. I did not test on a non-interactive terminal. I will try to set up one and
test accordingly.
3. But the test environment _will_ have to have a large enough terminal window,
else I will have to change the code to accommodate non-printable areas, which I
can look into.
4. This is probably why there is no unit test for the original GTK taskexp :-).
David
p.s. we always strive for better problems!
-----Original Message-----
From: richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2022 5:44 AM
To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Cc: Reyna, David <david.re...@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/selftest/bbtests: Add taskexp_tty UI test
On Sun, 2022-05-29 at 13:20 +0100, Richard Purdie via
lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Sun, 2022-05-29 at 11:25 +0100, Richard Purdie via
> lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org>
> > ---
> > meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/bbtests.py | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/bbtests.py
> > b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/bbtests.py
> > index cfac7afcf49..d222f0fb297 100644
> > --- a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/bbtests.py
> > +++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/bbtests.py
> > @@ -205,6 +205,11 @@ SSTATE_DIR = \"${TOPDIR}/download-selftest\"
> > result = runCmd('bitbake -R conf/postfile.conf -e | grep
> > TEST_POSTFILE=')
> > self.assertIn('postfile', result.output)
> >
> > + def test_taskexp_tty(self):
> > + cmd = 'bitbake -g -u taskexp_tty zlib acl'
> > + result = runCmd(cmd)
> > + self.assertEqual(0, result.status, "Command %s didn't run as
> > expected. %s" % (cmd, result.output))
> > +
> > def test_checkuri(self):
> > result = runCmd('bitbake -c checkuri m4')
> > self.assertEqual(0, result.status, msg = "\"checkuri\" task was
> > not executed. bitbake output: %s" % result.output)
>
>
> Thanks for the updated bitbake patch. Since I wanted to ensure there
> weren't regressions in the future I coded this test into OE-Core to
> ensure it was being tested on a regular and ongoing basis.
> Unfortunately it failed on the autobuilders:
>
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/79/builds/3646/steps/15/logs/stdio
>
> Does that error make any sense to you?
>
> For reference I've not tested locally myself yet, I just coded the test
> in to see how things went on the infrastructure.
I was thinking about this and whilst I'm guessing, it could be because
we're running this in a CI environment that doesn't have an interactive
terminal? Is there a way we can still test things there?
Cheers,
Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#166241):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/166241
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/91409238/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
