On 1/29/21 1:30 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 1/27/21 2:59 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
Since we've switched to meson our tests run with a timeout (meson uses 30 seconds as the default). However, not every machine that builds libvirt is fast enough to run every test under 30 seconds (each test binary has its own timeout, but still). For instance when building a package for distro on a farm that's under load. Or on a generally slow ARM hardware. While each developer can tune their command line for building by adding --timeout-multiplier=10, this is hard to do for aforementioned build farms.
It's time to admit that not everybody has the latest, top shelf CPU and increase the timeout.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> ---
This sure will help these build farms environments, but what about the cases where an actual timeout means that there is something wrong with the code? E.g. commits 46d88d8dba56 and 2ba0b7497ce7 were only possible because I was seeing tests timing out in Power hosts when the 30 sec timeout was being enforced.
A 120 second default timeout for the majority of the test cases is a long time. virschematest in this laptop I use takes 2.5 sec to complete. If I do something wrong in the code and now the test is now 4 times slower (10 sec) I will not be able to detect it (I'll need to start keeping track or something).
With 30 second timeout you won't detect that either. Using timeout as an indicator of test failure is wrong IMO. And if I were not lazy and fixed 'check-access' test suite then we would see instantly what tests are accessing paths in the host (=> depend on host configuration).
You'll have to run the test suit on your RasPi 2B to see that something went wrong because the timeout is better tuned to your RasPI than this laptop, but then the code is already upstream.
So should we make timeouts shorter then? Why is 30 seconds sweet spot?
And the tests will get more complex and will naturally take longer to complete. Eventually this timeout might no be enough. Increase the timeout again?
Sure, why not? We adapt to newer gcc/clang/$whatever, why not timeout? Michal