Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

omit_data_loss config variable #4001

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

richtja
Copy link
Contributor

@richtja richtja commented Sep 13, 2024

In tp_libvrt testing, We've seen many occurrences where "Bad file descriptor" OSError was raised during clean up phase when an external command is executed via avocado.utils.process utility. It happens when SubProcess class wants to flush the stdout and stderr of the external command after finishes. These kinds of errors might lead to stdout and stderr data loss, but during the tp_libvrt testing it leads to false positive failures, which makes test evaluation harder.

This commit introduces a new config variable omit_data_loss which, when is enabled, will omit these errors, and they won't affect the overall test result.

Reference: avocado-framework/avocado#6019

@richtja richtja self-assigned this Sep 13, 2024
In tp_libvrt testing, We've seen many occurrences where "Bad file
descriptor" OSError was raised during clean up phase when an external
command is executed via `avocado.utils.process` utility. It happens when
`SubProcess` class wants to flush the stdout and stderr of the external
command after finishes. These kinds of errors might lead to stdout and
stderr data loss, but during the tp_libvrt testing it leads to false
positive failures, which makes test evaluation harder.

This commit introduces a new config variable `omit_data_loss` which,
when is enabled, will omit these errors, and they won't affect the
overall test result.

Reference: avocado-framework/avocado#6019
Signed-off-by: Jan Richter <[email protected]>
@richtja
Copy link
Contributor Author

richtja commented Sep 13, 2024

Hi @smitterl, can you please test this in your workflow and let me know if this solution works for you? Thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Review Requested
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant