isitdeployable

Merge lp://staging/~roadmr/isitdeployable/jenkins into lp://staging/isitdeployable

  1. jenkins
  2. Merge into trunk
Proposed by Daniel Manrique
Status: Merged
Approved by: Daniel Manrique
Approved revision: 286
Merge reported by: Otto Co-Pilot
Merged at revision: not available
Proposed branch: lp://staging/~roadmr/isitdeployable/jenkins
Merge into: lp://staging/isitdeployable
Diff against target: 34 lines (+4/-1)
3 files modified
Makefile (+1/-1)
django_project/settings_base.py (+1/-0)
requirements-devel.txt (+2/-0)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://staging/~roadmr/isitdeployable/jenkins
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Ricardo Kirkner (community) Approve
Review via email: mp+341227@code.staging.launchpad.net

Commit message

Use jenkins testing for make test, for better ols-jenkaas integration.

This is used in the test target replacing "test" itself.

Should be a drop-in replacement but it generates the reports directory with coverage and timing xml reports

Description of the change

Use jenkins testing for make test, for better ols-jenkaas integration.

This is used in the test target replacing "test" itself.

Should be a drop-in replacement but it generates the reports directory with coverage and timing xml reports

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Ricardo Kirkner (ricardokirkner) wrote :

Should we maybe keep the "test" target for local development, and add a new target for jenkins specifically? This is to avoid the extra overhead of collecting performance and coverage metrics during local runs

Revision history for this message
Daniel Manrique (roadmr) wrote :

I timed and:

using "jenkins" instead of "test" takes the same time and adds the reports xml we care about with timing info.

using jenkins --enable-coverage takes 3x as long (90 seconds vs. 30). So for now I removed it because we don't care too much about coverage. But we discussed adding a make target that does coverage, and trying to use that in a separate jenkins job. I'll work on that next/later since coverage is useful but doesn't help with the problem at hand which is gathering info on slow tests.

Revision history for this message
Ricardo Kirkner (ricardokirkner) wrote :

LGTM

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
Otto Co-Pilot (otto-copilot) wrote :

Running landing tests failed
https://jenkins.ols.canonical.com/online-services/job/isitdeployable-docker/46/

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches