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.

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

proviers/base: add requires for bluetooth4/beacon_eddystone_url_* (New) #1646

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

hector-cao
Copy link
Contributor

Description

In order to pass, the test bluetooth4/beacon_eddystone_url_* needs:

  • bluez package/snap (+ adequate connections for ubuntu core)

This PR add requires section to the test bluetooth4/beacon_eddystone_url_*

Resolved issues

During Intel IOTG certification test run, we bumped into this test failure for server classic image,
It took us some time to realize that the bluez package is missing, this time spent can be saved with this
requires section

Documentation

N/A

Tests

The test runs successfully on 22.04 server image

In order to pass, the test bluetooth4/beacon_eddystone_url_* needs:
- bluez package/snap (+ adequate connections for ubuntu core)
@hector-cao hector-cao changed the title proviers/base: add requires for bluetooth4/beacon_eddystone_url_* proviers/base: add requires for bluetooth4/beacon_eddystone_url_* (New) Dec 10, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@pieqq pieqq left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey! Thanks for this PR. I have a comment below.

Comment on lines +291 to +292
requires:
package.name == 'bluez' or snap.name == 'bluez'
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you use this statement, and the bluez snap/package is missing, the test will be skipped, which might be even harder to spot if this test was supposed to be executed to begin with.

Is this what you want to do?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @pieqq,

  • I see this statement is used for other tests in this jobs file, that is why I had the idea to do the same for this test
  • You are right about the fact that we have to check all the skipped tests to make sure that are skipped for good reason, but without this statement, I also had a hard time to figure out that this test failed because bluez was missing, i have the feeling that it is a global discussion we might have because expressing dependency of a test on a binary availability is very common in our existing tests, so your concern is somehow global and not applicable to only this PR,

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe also having a fail-on-resource flag in this job will get what you want

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @zongminl, done in 9694748

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 9, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 48.85%. Comparing base (e2b812d) to head (9694748).
Report is 19 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1646   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   48.85%   48.85%           
=======================================
  Files         370      370           
  Lines       40234    40234           
  Branches     6794     6794           
=======================================
  Hits        19657    19657           
  Misses      19857    19857           
  Partials      720      720           
Flag Coverage Δ
provider-base 24.79% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants