Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite


Hake Huang
 

Hi Anas,

 

From recent feedback below types are most supported.

 

TYPE Name

PASS

FAIL

ERR

WARN

NOT_EXEC

IGNR

MISS

 

 

Regards,

Hake

 

From: Nashif, Anas <anas.nashif@...>
Sent: 2020
526 20:51
To: Hake Huang <hake.huang@...>; maxxliferobot@...; testing-wg@...
Subject: Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite

 

Caution: EXT Email

Didn’t we agree to remove the T?

Where is the 5 char restriction coming from?

 

From: <testing-wg@...> on behalf of Hake Huang <hake.huang@...>
Date: Monday, 25 May 2020 at 23:35
To: "maxxliferobot@..." <maxxliferobot@...>, "testing-wg@..." <testing-wg@...>
Subject: Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite

 

Summary all comments: I propose below type definitions:

 

Basic rules is:

1.  5 chars for each type

2.  clear definition

3.  test specific token

 

TYPE Name

Explanation

Actions

TPASS

test was successful

 

TFAIL

test assertion(s) failed

Report github issue

TERRR

test setup fails

Owner shall recheck

TWARN

other error occurred during the execution

Report github issue with low priority

TNEXE

Test was skipped due to some conditions at the specification stage

No actions

TIGNR

Test was skipped due to being marked manually by a user

No actions

TMISS

test was in the specification marked as to be executed, although it was not found in the report

Owner shall recheck

 

 

Regards,

Hake

 

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Maksim Masalski via lists.zephyrproject.org
Sent: 2020
525 20:47
To: testing-wg@...
Subject: Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite

 

Caution: EXT Email

Today we should agree on how test types will be defined. To my mind each test type definition should have only 1 robust definition. It is better to avoid "or", "some" words in the definition, because it will make unclear during testing why that test type happened. Will mark my comments using cursive font

a)      PASS - test was successful Agree

b)      FAIL - test assertion(s) failed Agree

c)      ERROR – is usually reported when test setup fails before the test even attempts to test the test assertions or(!) some other error occurred during the execution. I think necessary to split that. Make ERR1 and ERR_DARK
ERR1 -reported when test setup fails before the test even attempts to test the test assertions. ERR_DARK-some other error occurred during the execution, Nobody knows what exactly error is.

d)      NOT_EXECUTED (reason in msg) - Test was skipped due to some conditions at the specification stage (e.g. was on a filtered list). This would indicate that the behavior (not executing) was expected Agree, only if reason will be in msg. Why to make it shorter? NOT_EXEC

e)      IGNORED – Test was skipped due to being marked manually by a user. E.g. faulty tests could get such flag before they are repaired and be skipped during the execution. Why to make it shorter? IGNORE

f)       MISSING – test was in the specification marked as to be executed, although it was not found in the report. It will work only if we decide to take an approach where after tests execution the program runs through the list of tests in the specification (extracted in advance) and looks for the results in the results report. Why to make it shorter? MISS

Join testing-wg@lists.zephyrproject.org to automatically receive all group messages.