Hi!
> Then there are other perspectives that crosses this. For example, many of the
> LTP and
> kselftests will just fail, but there is no accumulated knowledge on what the
> result of
> each test means. So understanding what is expected to pass/fail for each
> platform is
> a sort of dependance
Hi!
> > A few thousand tests to be more precise, and also the content tend to
> > change between releases, be it test additions or removal and I do not
> > think this level of changes is somehing that makes sense to be tracked
> > in such database.
> >
> > It may be better to have more generic desc
Hi Cyril,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 9:11 AM Cyril Hrubis wrote:
>
> Hi!
> > Just saying "LTP" is not granular enough. LTP has hundreds of individual
> > test programs, and it would be useful to specify the individual tests
> > from LTP that should be run per sub-system.
>
> A few thousand tests to
Hi Tim,
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 12:01 PM Bird, Tim wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: automated-test...@lists.yoctoproject.org
> > On Behalf Of Don Zickus
> > Hi,
> >
> > At Linux Plumbers, a few dozen of us gathered together to discuss how
> > to expose what tests subsystem main
Hi!
> Just saying "LTP" is not granular enough. LTP has hundreds of individual
> test programs, and it would be useful to specify the individual tests
> from LTP that should be run per sub-system.
A few thousand tests to be more precise, and also the content tend to
change between releases, be it
> -Original Message-
> From: automated-test...@lists.yoctoproject.org
> On Behalf Of Don Zickus
> Hi,
>
> At Linux Plumbers, a few dozen of us gathered together to discuss how
> to expose what tests subsystem maintainers would like to run for every
> patch submitted or when CI runs tests
