fwts_test script does not include all of the tests we defined
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Checkbox Provider - Base |
Triaged
|
Medium
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
We use firmware/fwts to create fwts local jobs hard-coded explicitly in fwts_test script.
And we have:
firmware/
firmware/
defined in our whitelist, but we don't have the corresponding job for them, we don't have "wakealarm" in our fwts_test neither.
So these two jobs won't be started at all.
I think there are several possible ways to solve this:
1. Add "wakealarm" into fwts_test, remove these two test form our whitelist since they would be generated by the fwts local job
Potential problem: if you want to see what we have for fwts, you will need to open the script, or look into the generated local jobs.
2. Explicitly create the job in the job file.
Potential problem: it duplicates with the one from power-management*, but I think this is the most readable one.
3. We rename the job from power-management into firmware, it solves the duplication and easier to find when compared to 1.
Potential problem: we need to change some dependencies, and separate the firmware test
4. Remove these two tests from firmware, as we already have them in power-management
Potential problem: since it's in power-management, you might have some trouble if trying to search them in firmware
*PS. Also note that we have a set of similar job:
power-managemen
power-managemen
| Daniel Manrique (roadmr) wrote | #1 |
| Changed in plainbox-provider-checkbox: | |
| importance: | Undecided → Medium |
| status: | New → Triaged |
| Po-Hsu Lin (cypressyew) wrote | #2 |
power-managemen
I would just adjust the whitelists to use power-managemen
If we want to have them under firmware, I would just add them to the fwts_test script and generator, there will be a bit of duplication but it would be clearer I think.