[igt-dev] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for igt/drm_read: Exercise waking up the next waiter

[Antonio Argenziano]

On 27/02/19 13:22, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2019-02-27 21:18:10)
>>
>>
>> On 27/02/19 03:48, Patchwork wrote:
>>> == Series Details ==
>>>
>>> Series: igt/drm_read: Exercise waking up the next waiter
>>> URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/57285/
>>> State : success
>>>
>>> == Summary ==
>>>
>>> CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5664_full -> IGTPW_2531_full
>>> ====================================================
>>>
>>> Summary
>>> -------
>>>
>>>     **SUCCESS**
>>>
>>>     No regressions found.
>>>
>>>     External URL: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/57285/revisions/1/
>>>
>>> Possible new issues
>>> -------------------
>>>
>>>     Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in IGTPW_2531_full:
>>>
>>> ### IGT changes ###
>>>
>>> #### Possible regressions ####
>>>
>>>     * {igt at drm_read@short-buffer-wakeup} (NEW):
>>>       - shard-apl:          NOTRUN -> FAIL
>>>       - shard-snb:          NOTRUN -> FAIL
>>>       - shard-kbl:          NOTRUN -> FAIL
>>>       - shard-hsw:          NOTRUN -> FAIL
>>>       - shard-glk:          NOTRUN -> FAIL
>>
>> Is it normal to have the run claim success if a new test is added and fails?
> 
> It's expected, let's call it a feature. New tests start as automatically
> suppressed, so it falls out of that logic.
> 
> Now that Martin has the "its a brand spanking new test" bit worked out,
> the next feature would be indeed to identify that an IGT run with a new
> test is probably interested in that test result; and indeed such a
> series should ideally not be committed until the failure has been
> resolved.


OK, that makes sense.

Thanks,
Antonio

> 
> It would also be useful if the NOTRUN -> {FAIL, PASS} be reported in the
> issues.html so that we didn't have to go searching the full view for
> them.
> -Chris
>