Am 10.05.2019 um 10:55 hat Thomas Huth geschrieben: > On 08/05/2019 07.47, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 07/05/2019 17.50, Eric Blake wrote: > >> On 5/7/19 10:22 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > >>> On 07/05/2019 15.22, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >>>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> Currently, all tests are in the "auto" group. This is a little bit > >>>>> pointless. > >>>>> OTOH, we need a group for the tests that we can automatically run during > >>>>> "make check" each time, too. Tests in this new group are supposed to run > >>>>> with every possible QEMU configuration, for example they must run with > >>>>> every > >>>>> QEMU binary (also non-x86), without failing when an optional features is > >>>>> missing (but reporting "skip" is ok), and be able to run on all kind of > >>>>> host > >>>>> filesystems and users (i.e. also as "nobody" or "root"). > >>>>> So let's use the "auto" group for this class of tests now. The initial > >>>>> list has been determined by running the iotests with non-x86 QEMU > >>>>> targets > >>>>> and with our CI pipelines on Gitlab, Cirrus-CI and Travis (i.e. > >>>>> including > >>>>> macOS and FreeBSD). > >>>> > >>>> I wonder whether we should additionally limit "make check" to "quick" > >>>> tests. How slow are the non-quick auto tests for you? > >>> > >>> I already sorted out some of the tests that run veeeery long, since the > >>> run time on gitlab, cirrus-ci and travis is limited. "make check-block" > >>> currently takes 3 minutes on my laptop, I think that's still ok? > >>> > >>> When I run the tests from the auto group that are not in the quick > >>> group, I currently get: > >>> > >> > >> My personal threshold is about 5 seconds for quick, so: > >> > >>> 003 1s ... > >>> 007 2s ... > >> > >> Should these be moved to quick? > > > > I'll leave that decision up to the blocklayer folks ... I thought that > > there might have been a different reason that these have not been put > > into "quick" yet...? > > > >>> 013 5s ... > >> > >> this one is borderline > >> > >>> 014 15s ... > >>> 015 9s ... > >> > >> Definitely not quick, but if you think they are still okay for auto, I > >> can live with that. > >> > >>> 022 1s ... > >> > >> Another candidate for quick? > >> > >>> 023 18s ... > >> > >> Even longer than 14. Okay for auto? > > > > I think I'd give it a try. If people are complaining later that "make > > check" is running now way too long, we still can refine the list later. > > Thinking about this again, "make check" now runs quite a bit longer > indeed. So I now rather tend to remove the tests that run longer than 5s > from the auto group instead... I think I'll send a v4 of this patch > where I'll remove them from the auto group.
I don't think time is everything. We should also consider how much the tests contribute to basic code coverage. There is no point in removing a test from the list because it takes 10 seconds, but if I split it in two tests taking each 5 seconds, you would include both halves. For example, 030, 040 and 041 are not that quick (14/11/42 seconds, respectively), but they are the most important tests for block jobs and covering a lot. Sure, 42 seconds is a lot, but I'd keep 030 and 040 at least. Kevin
