[PATCH v3 06/19] test: Avoid failing skipped tests

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 08:22:59AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 at 08:11, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 09:00:33PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 at 02:00, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 15:14, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 01:38:00PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 at 19:06, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 02:32:00PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a test returns -EAGAIN this should not be considered a failure.
> > > > > > > > Fix what seems to be a problem case, where the pytests see a failure
> > > > > > > > when a test has merely been skipped.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (no changes since v1)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  test/test-main.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/test/test-main.c b/test/test-main.c
> > > > > > > > index 3fa6f6e32ec..cda1a186390 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/test/test-main.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/test/test-main.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ static int ut_run_test(struct unit_test_state *uts, struct unit_test *test,
> > > > > > > >  static int ut_run_test_live_flat(struct unit_test_state *uts,
> > > > > > > >                                struct unit_test *test)
> > > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > > > -     int runs;
> > > > > > > > +     int runs, ret;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >       if ((test->flags & UT_TESTF_OTHER_FDT) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SANDBOX))
> > > > > > > >               return skip_test(uts);
> > > > > > > > @@ -458,8 +458,11 @@ static int ut_run_test_live_flat(struct unit_test_state *uts,
> > > > > > > >       if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_LIVE)) {
> > > > > > > >               if (!(test->flags & UT_TESTF_FLAT_TREE)) {
> > > > > > > >                       uts->of_live = true;
> > > > > > > > -                     ut_assertok(ut_run_test(uts, test, test->name));
> > > > > > > > -                     runs++;
> > > > > > > > +                     ret = ut_run_test(uts, test, test->name);
> > > > > > > > +                     if (ret != -EAGAIN) {
> > > > > > > > +                             ut_assertok(ret);
> > > > > > > > +                             runs++;
> > > > > > > > +                     }
> > > > > > > >               }
> > > > > > > >       }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @@ -483,8 +486,11 @@ static int ut_run_test_live_flat(struct unit_test_state *uts,
> > > > > > > >           (!runs || ut_test_run_on_flattree(test)) &&
> > > > > > > >           !(gd->flags & GD_FLG_FDT_CHANGED)) {
> > > > > > > >               uts->of_live = false;
> > > > > > > > -             ut_assertok(ut_run_test(uts, test, test->name));
> > > > > > > > -             runs++;
> > > > > > > > +             ret = ut_run_test(uts, test, test->name);
> > > > > > > > +             if (ret != -EAGAIN) {
> > > > > > > > +                     ut_assertok(ret);
> > > > > > > > +                     runs++;
> > > > > > > > +             }
> > > > > > > >       }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >       return 0;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How did you trigger this case exactly?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I noticed this in CI, where some skipped tests were shown as failed in
> > > > > > the log, even though they were not counted as failures in the final
> > > > > > results.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's really really strange, do you have an example log or something
> > > > > around still?
> > > >
> > > > This happens on snow, which is (maybe) the only real board that
> > > > defines CONFIG_UNIT_TEST
> > > >
> > > > test/py/tests/test_ut.py sssnow # ut bdinfo bdinfo_test_eth
> > > > Test: bdinfo_test_eth: bdinfo.c
> > > > Skipping: Console recording disabled
> > > > test/test-main.c:486, ut_run_test_live_flat(): 0 == ut_run_test(uts,
> > > > test, test->name): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0xfffffff5 (-11)
> > > > Test bdinfo_test_eth failed 1 times
> > > > Skipped: 1, Failures: 1
> > > > snow # F+u-boot-test-reset snow snow
> > > >
> > > > For this particular mechanism (-EAGAIN returned by test_pre_run()) , I
> > > > think a better fix would be to squash the error in ut_run_test(), as
> > > > is done when -EAGAIN is returned in the body of the test. I'll update
> > > > that. I cannot see any other way this could happen, but we can always
> > > > deal with it later if it does.
> > >
> > > No, that doesn't work, since the failure counting happens in the
> > > caller. This patch seems to be the right fix, so I'll send it again
> > > with a better commit message.
> >
> > And I'll try and test it on Pi as with the series I posted and so
> > UNIT_TEST compiles on there, I got what looks like the same failure.
> 
> OK ta.
> 
> It would be good to get the Labgrid series into -next as it fixes
> quite a few problems on snow for me. It will provide a better base for
> solving other problems.

I want to pick some of it for sure. But it also broke my lab support
(before an office power cycle left it in an odd state and I need to go
and confirm what's needed / not needed again to bring the boards up).

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20240822/720acecf/attachment.sig>