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


Hake Huang
 

Hi All,

 

This weekly meeting agenda.

 

1.     Progress on test result repo. (20 Minutes)

2.     Final the test type definition.

a)      PASS - test was successful

b)      FAIL - test assertion(s) failed

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

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

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

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. 

 

3.     Round table discussion. (20 minutes)

 

 

 

Regards,

Hake

 

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of testing-wg@... Calendar via lists.zephyrproject.org
Sent: 2020
521 0:33
To: testing-wg@...
Subject: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite

 

Caution: EXT Email

Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call

When:
Monday, 25 May 2020
1:00pm to 2:00pm
(UTC+00:00) UTC
Repeats: Weekly on Monday

Where:
https://zoom.us/j/679527144

Organizer: testing-wg@...

An RSVP is requested. Click here to RSVP

Description:
Zephyr Testing WG Meeting
Meeting Agenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qti_6mFPkctk9v2vnbz-IMe0ZZO2FJEpX72FaNnEfpE/edit?usp=sharing
-----
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/j/679527144

Or iPhone one-tap :
    US: +16465588656,,679527144# or +16699006833,,679527144# 
Or Telephone:
    Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): 
        US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 855 880 1246 (Toll Free) or +1 877 369 0926 (Toll Free)
    Meeting ID: 679 527 144
    International numbers available: 
https://zoom.us/u/ed7Ng0QxH


Nashif, Anas
 

Apologies won’t be able to attend today.

 

Anas

 

From: <testing-wg@...> on behalf of Hake Huang <hake.huang@...>
Date: Sunday, 24 May 2020 at 22:42
To: "testing-wg@..." <testing-wg@...>
Subject: Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite

 

Hi All,

 

This weekly meeting agenda.

 

1.  Progress on test result repo. (20 Minutes)

2.  Final the test type definition.

a)   PASS - test was successful

b)   FAIL - test assertion(s) failed

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

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

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

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. 

 

3.  Round table discussion. (20 minutes)

 

 

 

Regards,

Hake

 

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of testing-wg@... Calendar via lists.zephyrproject.org
Sent: 2020
521 0:33
To: testing-wg@...
Subject: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite

 

Caution: EXT Email

Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call

When:
Monday, 25 May 2020
1:00pm to 2:00pm
(UTC+00:00) UTC
Repeats: Weekly on Monday

Where:
https://zoom.us/j/679527144

Organizer: testing-wg@...

An RSVP is requested. Click here to RSVP

Description:
Zephyr Testing WG Meeting
Meeting Agenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qti_6mFPkctk9v2vnbz-IMe0ZZO2FJEpX72FaNnEfpE/edit?usp=sharing
-----
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/j/679527144

Or iPhone one-tap :
    US: +16465588656,,679527144# or +16699006833,,679527144# 
Or Telephone:
    Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): 
        US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 855 880 1246 (Toll Free) or +1 877 369 0926 (Toll Free)
    Meeting ID: 679 527 144
    International numbers available: 
https://zoom.us/u/ed7Ng0QxH


Maksim Masalski <maxxliferobot@...>
 

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


Hake Huang
 

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


Masalski, Maksim
 

Hello, Hake and team. I inspected your abbreviations of test types. I have some comments.

1. I can’t understand why we need that “T”, it makes difficult to read text. I vote for clear and understandable definitions without “T” letter.

2. TERRR, as I understand should be just ERR.

3. TNEXE” maybe better NOT_EXEC? EXE feels like Windows execution file abbreviation.

 

My variants are below.

TYPE Name

PASS

FAIL

ERR

WARN

NOT_EXEC

IGNR

MISS

 

Maksim

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Hake Huang
Sent: 2020
526 6:35
To: maxxliferobot@...; 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


Perkowski, Maciej
 

Hi,

+1 for Maksim suggestions. I am also still wondering, if WARN supposed to be a verdict. According to the proposition, if there was WARN does it mean that test was neither PASS, nor FAIL, nor ERR but still something else?

Cheers,

Maciej

 

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Masalski, Maksim via lists.zephyrproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:02 AM
To: Hake Huang <hake.huang@...>; maxxliferobot@...; testing-wg@...
Subject: Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite

 

Hello, Hake and team. I inspected your abbreviations of test types. I have some comments.

1. I cant understand why we need that T, it makes difficult to read text. I vote for clear and understandable definitions without T letter.

2. TERRR, as I understand should be just ERR.

3. TNEXE maybe better NOT_EXEC? EXE feels like Windows execution file abbreviation.

 

My variants are below.

TYPE Name

PASS

FAIL

ERR

WARN

NOT_EXEC

IGNR

MISS

 

Maksim

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Hake Huang
Sent: 2020
526 6:35
To: maxxliferobot@...; 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


Hake Huang
 

Hi Maksim,

 

At least we can get aligned with type catalogs, i.e. 7 types.

 

leading with ‘T’ means this is test result. The NOT_EXEC looks strange to me because other types are using one word abbreviation. But I am OK for any naming, just want to settle this issue.

 

Regards,

Hake

 

From: Masalski, Maksim <maksim.masalski@...>
Sent: 2020
526 15:02
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

Hello, Hake and team. I inspected your abbreviations of test types. I have some comments.

1. I cant understand why we need that T, it makes difficult to read text. I vote for clear and understandable definitions without T letter.

2. TERRR, as I understand should be just ERR.

3. TNEXE maybe better NOT_EXEC? EXE feels like Windows execution file abbreviation.

 

My variants are below.

TYPE Name

PASS

FAIL

ERR

WARN

NOT_EXEC

IGNR

MISS

 

Maksim

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Hake Huang
Sent: 2020
526 6:35
To: maxxliferobot@...; 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


Hake Huang
 

Hi Maciej,

 

WARN is something like all test steps pass. But you get an unexpected log. For example, some warning from the kernel.

 

Regards,

Hake

 

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Perkowski, Maciej via lists.zephyrproject.org
Sent: 2020
526 15:09
To: testing-wg@...
Subject: Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite

 

Caution: EXT Email

Hi,

+1 for Maksim suggestions. I am also still wondering, if WARN supposed to be a verdict. According to the proposition, if there was WARN does it mean that test was neither PASS, nor FAIL, nor ERR but still something else?

Cheers,

Maciej

 

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Masalski, Maksim via lists.zephyrproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:02 AM
To: Hake Huang <hake.huang@...>; maxxliferobot@...; testing-wg@...
Subject: Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite

 

Hello, Hake and team. I inspected your abbreviations of test types. I have some comments.

1. I cant understand why we need that T, it makes difficult to read text. I vote for clear and understandable definitions without T letter.

2. TERRR, as I understand should be just ERR.

3. TNEXE maybe better NOT_EXEC? EXE feels like Windows execution file abbreviation.

 

My variants are below.

TYPE Name

PASS

FAIL

ERR

WARN

NOT_EXEC

IGNR

MISS

 

Maksim

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Hake Huang
Sent: 2020
526 6:35
To: maxxliferobot@...; 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


Nashif, Anas
 

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


Erwan Gouriou
 

Hello, 

I agree removing the T would make things easier to read.
Besides, we're using a poor man's test instability status using test result first letter:

tests/arch/arm/arm_irq_vector_table/arch.interrupt.arm.irq_vector_table, nucleo_f746zg (instable: pfpfffpppffffppfp)

Getting the second letter is of course doable also, but I like this simplicity.
(Also, it's good that each status begins by a different letter).

Erwan


On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 09:02, Masalski, Maksim <maksim.masalski@...> wrote:

Hello, Hake and team. I inspected your abbreviations of test types. I have some comments.

1. I can’t understand why we need that “T”, it makes difficult to read text. I vote for clear and understandable definitions without “T” letter.

2. TERRR, as I understand should be just ERR.

3. TNEXE” maybe better NOT_EXEC? EXE feels like Windows execution file abbreviation.

 

My variants are below.

TYPE Name

PASS

FAIL

ERR

WARN

NOT_EXEC

IGNR

MISS

 

Maksim

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Hake Huang
Sent: 2020
526 6:35
To: maxxliferobot@...; 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


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