On 7 February 2011 02:05, David Gilbert david.gilbert@linaro.org wrote:
On 4 February 2011 21:53, Paul Larson paul.larson@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Mirsad, I'm looking at the recent edits to https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Validation/Specs/ValidationSchedulerand wanted to start a thread to discuss. Would love to hear thoughts from others as well.
We could probably use some more in the way of implementation details, but this is starting to take shape pretty well, good work. I have a few comments below:
Admin users can also cancel any scheduled jobs.
Job submitters should be allowed to cancel their own jobs too, right?
I think in general, the user stories need tweaking. Many of them center around automatic scheduling of jobs based on some event (adding a
machine,
adding a test, etc). Based on the updated design, this kind of logic
would
be in the piece we were referring to as the driver. The scheduler
shouldn't
be making those decisions on its own, but it should provide an interface
for
both humans to schedule jobs (web, cli) as well as and api for machines (driver) to do this.
I'd like to add as user stories: Dave wants to rerun a test on a particular machine to see if a failure is machine specific.
An initial idea we had was to run jobs based on machine type, i.e. BeagleBoard, not on a particular machine, i.e. BeagleBoard_ID001. The dispatcher would choose on which particular machine to run, depending on availability. I understand your point when running on a particular machine is desirable, but maybe this feature should be enabled for admins trying to track a deviating hardware? Or maybe this is a user story for dashboard, to have a feature comparing and presenting results from all machines of the same type, or even in broader aspect for chosen/all machine types we support?
Dave wants to run the same test on a set of machines to compare the
results.
This is almost same as first. Maybe the better solution, as I wrote above, is to go to dashboard and compare all the existing results there instead? This assumes of course that there are results already reported for wanted hardware, which I think would be a case if looking at weekly execution intervals, but probably not daily. What do you think, is this reasonable enough or am I missing something important?
I'd also like for there to be history available for each machine stuff has run on; e.g. knowing that a machine has just been reinstalled or been updated might help you understand a failure.
Exactly, I agree. I think this will be solved by the dispatcher when reporting test results to the dashboard. The results in the dashboard should include that information, and even keep history, so I guess it is only to present the information in the desirable format.
Dave
Thanks for your comments Dave!