On 11/9/20 10:16 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 09/11/2020 10.09, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 11/9/20 10:04 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 09/11/2020 09.07, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> This test is regularly failing on CI :( Do not run it automatically. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py | 1 + >>>> tests/acceptance/replay_kernel.py | 1 + >>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py >>>> b/tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py >>>> index 8f433a67f84..010e8790c0f 100644 >>>> --- a/tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py >>>> +++ b/tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py >>>> @@ -1025,6 +1025,7 @@ def test_m68k_mcf5208evb(self): >>>> tar_hash = 'ac688fd00561a2b6ce1359f9ff6aa2b98c9a570c' >>>> self.do_test_advcal_2018('07', tar_hash, 'sanity-clause.elf') >>>> >>>> + @skipUnless(os.getenv('AVOCADO_TIMEOUT_EXPECTED'), 'Test might >>>> timeout') >>>> def test_microblaze_s3adsp1800(self): >>>> """ >>>> :avocado: tags=arch:microblaze >>>> diff --git a/tests/acceptance/replay_kernel.py >>>> b/tests/acceptance/replay_kernel.py >>>> index 00c228382bd..c1f5fa4de71 100644 >>>> --- a/tests/acceptance/replay_kernel.py >>>> +++ b/tests/acceptance/replay_kernel.py >>>> @@ -280,6 +280,7 @@ def test_m68k_mcf5208evb(self): >>>> file_path = self.fetch_asset(tar_url, asset_hash=tar_hash) >>>> self.do_test_advcal_2018(file_path, 'sanity-clause.elf') >>>> >>>> + @skipUnless(os.getenv('AVOCADO_TIMEOUT_EXPECTED'), 'Test might >>>> timeout') >>>> def test_microblaze_s3adsp1800(self): >>>> """ >>>> :avocado: tags=arch:microblaze >>> >>> I think this is a recent regression - it hasn't been failing in the past. We >>> should first try to find out why it is failing now before sending it to the >>> @skipUnless nirvana... could you maybe add it to the "Known issues" at >>> https://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/5.2 instead? >> >> I agree it looks like a regression. >> >> I disagree we should keep broken tests failing the pipeline, >> even if we are not using a Gating CI. > > But what happens if you disable the test at this point in time now? I think > nobody is going to look into this issue anymore since nobody feels > responsible. Thus the bug simply get completely ignored.
Corollary: Nobody will use or trust GitLab CI... > Please add it at > least the the "Known issues" section. Will do.
