New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

lwip: Increase timeout on network tests with python projects #3832

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 6, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@geky
Member

geky commented Feb 23, 2017

Sometimes when under heavy load, the CI machines can take a significant amount of time to bring up a python process (~10s). The timeouts for the network tests were chosen without much thought, and didn't leave much room for this sort of delay.

This patch brings up timeouts for ntetwork tests 20s -> 60s

cc @bridadan

lwip: Increase timeout on tests
Sometimes when under heavy load, the CI machines can take a significant
amount of time to bring up a python process (~10s). The timeouts for
the network tests were chosen without much thought, and didn't leave
much room for this sort of delay.

This patch brings up timeouts for ntetwork tests 20s -> 60s

@geky geky added the needs: review label Feb 23, 2017

@geky geky requested a review from bridadan Feb 23, 2017

@geky geky referenced this pull request Feb 23, 2017

Merged

Separating CoAP library from mbed-client-c #3789

1 of 1 task complete
@teetak01

Would it not make sense to create some DEFAULT_TEST_TIMEOUT which could be used to fine-tune this kind of parameters? A few GENERIC parameters for groups of common tests.

@bridadan

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

bridadan commented Feb 23, 2017

I see your point, but I feel like that may obscure what the DEFAULT_TEST_TIMEOUT is. By reading the code you can at least see the timeout number and it isn't hidden behind a macro.

I like that your solution would reduce the amount of repeated code, but I have concerns it may cause more confusion. Just my opinion though!

@sg-

This comment has been minimized.

Member

sg- commented Feb 23, 2017

/morph test-nightly

@sg- sg- added needs: CI and removed needs: review labels Feb 23, 2017

@bridadan

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

bridadan commented Feb 24, 2017

I ended up killing CI on this to let higher priority PRs get through testing first.

@bridadan bridadan removed the needs: CI label Feb 24, 2017

@mbed-bot

This comment has been minimized.

mbed-bot commented Feb 24, 2017

Result: ABORTED

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test-nightly

Output

mbed Build Number: 1698

Example Build failed!

@teetak01

This comment has been minimized.

teetak01 commented Feb 24, 2017

Of course, it really depends how your tests work and how much similarity you can expect. We have some clearly-defined, often-used generic timeouts, like registration_timeout, rest_timeout, mock-timeout, etc.

@adbridge

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

adbridge commented Feb 24, 2017

Looks like nightly broke on the examples compilation:

mbed-os-example-mesh-minimal UBLOX_EVK_ODIN_W2 IAR failed

@bulislaw do you know if this example should pass with the ublox board ?

@bridadan

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

bridadan commented Feb 24, 2017

@adbridge I killed that build, it wasn't an actual failure.

@0xc0170

This comment has been minimized.

Member

0xc0170 commented Feb 27, 2017

/morph test-nightly

@0xc0170 0xc0170 added the needs: CI label Feb 27, 2017

@mbed-bot

This comment has been minimized.

mbed-bot commented Feb 27, 2017

Result: SUCCESS

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test-nightly

Output

mbed Build Number: 1602

All builds and test passed!

@0xc0170 0xc0170 merged commit 05e7aad into ARMmbed:master Mar 6, 2017

4 checks passed

Cam-CI uvisor Build & Test Success
Details
ci/morph-test-nightly Job has started
Details
continuous-integration/jenkins/pr-head This commit looks good
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment