pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] QA Status

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] QA Status
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:07:19 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <577AF2CD.60104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <577AF2CD.60104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AXh8HCCUiq/MGL4z1lcQfIkWKttDWA==
Thread-topic: QA Status
Hi Ken,

----- Original Message -----
> Things not looking too good here.  We have more hosts this time, but %
> failure rate is too high.
> 
> Lots of failures on a couple of unusual hosts (fuji and grundy) that are
> probably not too much of a concern.
> 
> 119 is a known problem (actually debris from qa/083) that is fixed but still
> to work its way through the QA farm.
> 
> Ditto for 544 (fixed collectl2pcp and qa/544 issues).
> 
> The rest are all over the shop.
> 
> Details for the most commonly failing tests are available from
> ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/pcp/download/qa-status/
> 
> === Synopsis ===
> 
> QA Status from Ken McDonell's QA Farm in Melbourne
> 
> Summary: 27033 run, 150 failed (0.55%)
> 
> QA Test  Fail  Failure Signatures (number of different failure patterns)
>     722    14  2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
>     119    13  9 4
>    1108    10  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
>     600     9  8 1
>     544     6  3 3
>     823     5  4 1
>     361     4  4
>     274     4  4

I've pushed in a fix for 722, 'twas a memory corruption problem.

I saw 1108 fail once, but never again & running it in a loop isn't
able to hit it, so I'm wondering if its related to some state left
behind from an earlier test.  I'll keep digging.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>