[PATCH i-g-t 1/3] igt_hook: Add feature

[Gustavo Sousa]

Quoting Kamil Konieczny (2024-05-16 07:40:58-03:00)
>Hi Gustavo,
>On 2024-05-15 at 14:35:55 -0300, Gustavo Sousa wrote:
>> Quoting Kamil Konieczny (2024-05-15 14:10:55-03:00)
>> >Hi Gustavo,
>> >On 2024-05-09 at 12:24:29 -0300, Gustavo Sousa wrote:
>> >> For development purposes, sometimes it is useful to have a way of
>> >> running custom scripts at certain points of test executions. A
>> >> real-world example I bumped into recently is to collect information from
>> >> sysfs before and after running each entry of a testlist.
>> >> 
>> >> While it is possible for the user to handcraft a script that calls each
>> >> test with the correct actions before and after execution, we can provide
>> >> a better experience by adding built-in support for running hooks during
>> >> test execution.
>> >> 
>> >> That would be even better when adding the same kind of support for
>> >> igt_runner (which is done in an upcoming change), since the user can
>> >> also nicely resume with igt_resume with the hook already setup in case a
>> >> crash happens during execution of the test list.
>> >> 
>> >> As such provide implement support for hooks, integrate it into
>> >> igt_core and expose the functionality via --hook CLI option on test
>> >> executables.
>> >
>> >Hmm, why not just a pre-hook@ and post-hook@ in testlist itself?
>> >It will be easier to handle - just more parsing.
>> 
>> How would that work with respect to filters? The current proposal allows
>> something filtering the events to be tracked. For example, one can use
>> `--hook "pre-test,pre-dyn-subtest:echo hello"` to run the command only
>> before test binary starts and before each dynamic subtest.
>> 
>> Also, there are cases where a testlist is not really used. Examples are
>> calling a test binary directly or calling igt_runner without
>> --test-list. So, while I believe we could consider support for
>> describing hooks in testlist, I do not think that would be a substitute
>> for the --hook option.
>> 
>> On a personal note, my current use case for hooks is more towards
>> debugging, so for me it is more convenient to have a --hook option than
>> having to make a copy of a testlist only to add the hook instructions
>> there.
>> 
>> --
>> Gustavo Sousa
>> 
>> >
>> >Added Petri to cc.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Kamil
>> >
>
>Ok, that makes sense, I will look into your patches later (maybe next week).

Thanks!

>In meantime please look into GitLab failure here:
>https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/igt-ci-tags/-/jobs/58540606

Yeah, already tried to take a look at it a few days ago [1], but as I
mentioned there, I'm not sure how I can get more info (e.g. logs) on the CI
failure. The test works fine for me locally. I wonder if it is possible
to setup the container locally so that I get the same test envionment.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/171527425512.5772.1654105508452706087@gjsousa-mobl2/

--
Gustavo Sousa

>
>Regards,
>Kamil
>