Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Couple of improvements for faster tests #1288

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Couple of improvements for faster tests #1288

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

jfckm
Copy link

@jfckm jfckm commented Jul 22, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Needs changes in test-framework. Also, fails sporadically while removing partitions - still needs some debugging

This change is Reviewable

@jfckm jfckm added the RFC Request For Comments label Jul 22, 2022
mmichal10
mmichal10 previously approved these changes Jul 29, 2022
View reviewed changes
@jfckm jfckm dismissed stale reviews from mmichal10 and karolinavelkaja via f3ee6a7 August 16, 2022 12:52
@pep8speaks
Copy link

pep8speaks commented Aug 16, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Hello @jfckm! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2022-09-13 08:26:54 UTC

@jfckm jfckm force-pushed the faster-tests branch 3 times, most recently from ccc3af0 to 5f230ed Compare August 16, 2022 13:05
pdebski21
pdebski21 previously approved these changes Aug 19, 2022
View reviewed changes
kmajzero
kmajzero reviewed Aug 22, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@kmajzero kmajzero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What if a particular test would need custom setup/teardown? Is this possible (or even needed)?

@jfckm
Copy link
Author

jfckm commented Aug 22, 2022

What if a particular test would need custom setup/teardown? Is this possible (or even needed)?

Right now I believe it's handled by doing prepare/teardown inline in test or separating it out to per-module functions. You could also use fixtures, but (sadly) they don't get much use in our TF/tests.

kmajzero
kmajzero previously approved these changes Aug 22, 2022
View reviewed changes
@jfckm jfckm dismissed stale reviews from kmajzero and pdebski21 via a07347f September 8, 2022 11:03
@jfckm jfckm force-pushed the faster-tests branch 2 times, most recently from a07347f to 0e80c34 Compare September 9, 2022 07:48
@jfckm
Copy link
Author

jfckm commented Sep 9, 2022

@CAS-Linux-Jenkins retest this please

Jan Musial added 2 commits September 13, 2022 10:25
tests/api: Move prepare/teardown to TF
e4d1e92 
Signed-off-by: Jan Musial <jan.musial@intel.com>
tests: Use cached device_ids
de6d8dd 
Signed-off-by: Jan Musial <jan.musial@intel.com>
@katlapinka katlapinka added enhancement New feature or request tests labels May 15, 2024
@Deixx
Copy link
Contributor

Deixx commented Sep 2, 2024

needs serious analysis, preferably by the author

  1. conflicts (not surprising after this time)
  2. test-framework changes implied (is there a corresponding MR for TF?)

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

@arutk arutk arutk left review comments

@mmichal10 mmichal10 mmichal10 left review comments

@pdebski21 pdebski21 pdebski21 left review comments

@karolinavelkaja karolinavelkaja karolinavelkaja left review comments

@kmajzero kmajzero kmajzero left review comments

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement New feature or request RFC Request For Comments tests
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
9 participants
@jfckm @pep8speaks @Deixx @mmichal10 @arutk @pdebski21 @karolinavelkaja @kmajzero @katlapinka