Standardize return codes

Bug #1025633 reported by Para Siva
18
This bug affects 3 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
UTAH
Fix Released
Wishlist
Javier Collado

Bug Description

The following job reports 'Success' despite some test failures with return code 1.

http://10.189.74.2:8080/view/UTAH/job/siva-utah-server-test/3/

Please see the following log file, which reports a few failures,
10.189.74.2:8080/view/UTAH/job/siva-utah-server-test/3/artifact/utah-173-precise-server-i386_dnsmaster.run_2012-07-17_10-07-33.yaml

Related branches

Para Siva (psivaa)
tags: added: qa-manual-testing quantal
Revision history for this message
Max Brustkern (nuclearbob) wrote :

Right now, we try to report success if all jobs were run successfully, regardless of their outcome. If we want to put in a check for the job success as part of the test script, I think we should decide what output codes mean "test failure" and what output codes mean "test error" and report those consistently. The other option would be to validate the test results as part of the jenkins job; we could grep all the yaml files for returncode, and fail if a non-zero value comes up.

Relatedly, jobs which threw exceptions when provisioning a machine also reported success earlier today. That should now be fixed in the tree, and I'll be ordering a new build once I've got all the merges done.

Changed in utah:
status: New → Triaged
Revision history for this message
Javier Collado (javier.collado) wrote :

client return codes standardization is part of the UTAH blueprint for next cycle:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/qa-r-utah

so I'm setting the importance of this bug to make sure this is addressed

Changed in utah:
importance: Undecided → Medium
assignee: nobody → Javier Collado (javier.collado)
Revision history for this message
Javier Collado (javier.collado) wrote :

This is related to bug1025633, but it just fixes the part of using the client
return code in the server to get result information in jenkins. The part
regarding the meaning of the client return code is yet to be done.

Revision history for this message
Max Brustkern (nuclearbob) wrote :

I think we should either change the priority of this bug, or close it (and optionally open a new one for the blueprint item.) The actual problem that was causing issues for the production team is solved in the current release, so we should be tracking the client return codes at a lower priority.

Changed in utah:
importance: Medium → Wishlist
summary: - Utah reports Success despite some post installation test failures
+ Standardize return codes
Changed in utah:
status: Triaged → Fix Committed
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.