snapd integration tests: print stdout/stderr #1591

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
Member

kyrofa commented Oct 4, 2017

  • Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
  • Have you signed the CLA?
  • If this is a bugfix. Have you checked that there is a bug report open for the issue you are trying to fix on bug reports?
  • If this is a new feature. Have you discussed the design on the forum?
  • Have you successfully run ./runtests.sh static?
  • Have you successfully run ./runtests.sh unit?

Some snapd integration tests take longer than 10 minutes to run. Since they print no output, Travis thinks they've hung and aborts. Start printing (and capturing) stdout/stderr, both to enable debugging as well as ensure Travis doesn't think a running test has hung.

@kyrofa kyrofa referenced this pull request Oct 4, 2017

Merged

ament plugin: new plugin #1583

6 of 6 tasks complete
snapd integration tests: print stdout/stderr
Some snapd integration tests take longer than 10 minutes to run. Since
they print no output, Travis thinks they've hung and aborts. Start
printing (and capturing) stdout/stderr, both to enable debugging as well
as ensure Travis doesn't think a running test has hung.

Signed-off-by: Kyle Fazzari <kyrofa@ubuntu.com>
Member

kyrofa commented Oct 5, 2017

@elopio hitting the maximum time limit here, I guess printing slows things down. Thoughts?

Member

kyrofa commented Oct 5, 2017

That particular test actually seems unrelated, it doubled in time, so I suspect it was a network issue. Rerunning. The snapd tests (where we actually print stuff) went from 8 to 17 minutes, but it's not clear if that is also due to the network.

Member

kyrofa commented Oct 5, 2017

Ah ha, brilliance. This PR may not be necessary unless people want it for other reasons.

Member

kyrofa commented Oct 5, 2017

Alright, all green here. Thoughts on this? Does it seem useful?

Member

elopio commented Oct 5, 2017

I don't like the slow down. But I think we need the output. Wait if we just save it and add it full to the details on error?

Oh well, I guess that's what we had before. I would prefer faster executions, even if there is no progress printed. So I'm inclined to travis_wait.

Member

kyrofa commented Oct 5, 2017

I'm inclined to agree. Let's wait for #1583 and make sure that actually works.

Member

kyrofa commented Oct 19, 2017

This was not immediately useful, so I'll close it. Please let me know if it's desired.

@kyrofa kyrofa closed this Oct 19, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment