From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7A4A034F for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:55:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD116410DB; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:55:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346C740DF7 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:55:28 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1633690527; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=8MxvBOzFxeovvr6M+D9QVdxAK7k3PsRyTfDeP4Xyzmc=; b=dB1p5kwdr+pdha00llfLqyGqzOp/oixJE2XqXixxu2dCXd3pdCbrXwKC9Gm8g3P0OAE2Eg hp0DtpseWwSZZHmi7vhNhMCFIU67YhsFyjFzdlcCXwzVBszM/EELkgK26EeEmm0tweG6if uCmrvGxRfURG7cCLpZk2LwSkeqekvbA= Received: from mail-lf1-f69.google.com (mail-lf1-f69.google.com [209.85.167.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-360-jZ1LAVHiOvujcf-qR1SqRw-1; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 06:55:25 -0400 X-MC-Unique: jZ1LAVHiOvujcf-qR1SqRw-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f69.google.com with SMTP id n22-20020a0565120ad600b003fcc09af59fso6791245lfu.21 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 03:55:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8MxvBOzFxeovvr6M+D9QVdxAK7k3PsRyTfDeP4Xyzmc=; b=kJETiAktkKq5ww5fqXrN0vHOhXzns0xgjuNLCEr+KAAZntgbXRIYJLkk3n1bYlHDbv aeS2pyG1in4FQcTMi9qklzBd8nNd0yzviNa0CM0wGS9jkUiRIHoM7lOgAZT6H1KHYqCt 2TwekTfXIuTewOnLLwr1KvFqAug9dBPo+d5xMMGXPyIlhUxGO3YWEda832E+3TRd9TWG e1icCRWlHkYFM2oHxYnyBBuUGuy6jfInhO/5Cg1c6cOlUM26pigl4/8HwZyFbpmFEH2K asCZb5ADD7Ia7ngtJYsuES8/9PDx9VZTCHcrLf8S+JgWvSRpktq7lqC34iIZaiEPz+V6 e8pw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LagiyCxGQo+ZBSB1FmiQbOrWDV/pA1Gw1IRE0YWS+SoMD22D2 uRvNzNY8eGBv9MPpw84wr8i0UA6yzXMJCzH/bhMcJtr0WLgT+vt4SCXWzt7mp9lhz8vgnVvqmVs /nQV+Wbg571DnyooBGw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a54d:: with SMTP id e13mr2611253ljn.159.1633690524166; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 03:55:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzPqLhqLvNVnBQWtLX7kAy04PpHDg66zQB9zkDO8xDaIMBX/aXvukbA/m9W2USnKg19JoF88hj1F8lpQsBVlT8= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a54d:: with SMTP id e13mr2611230ljn.159.1633690523964; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 03:55:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <01fac4e3-6c15-012d-0427-0936ef537bbb@intel.com> <4908203.EXNKlGYlhs@thomas> In-Reply-To: <4908203.EXNKlGYlhs@thomas> From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:55:12 +0200 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: "Chen, Zhaoyan" , Lincoln Lavoie , Ali Alnubani , Aaron Conole , ci@dpdk.org, Ferruh Yigit , dev Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Should we keep autotest.py ? X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 12:33 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 08/10/2021 10:03, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 10/8/2021 8:30 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:08 PM David Marchand wrote: > > >> > > >> Looking at how to add an autotest, I came upon autotest_data.py used > > >> by autotest.py which has been in DPDK for a long time. > > >> > > >> From what I see, DTS directly calls the test binary. > > >> The public CI relies on meson to invoke unit tests. > > >> > > >> Is the autotest.py script still used in some CI or can we remove it? > > > > > > Looking back in history, we lost ability to call this script with make removal. > > > So I'd say we are fine with dropping it. > > > See 3cc6ecfdfe85 ("build: remove makefiles") > > > > > > Going once. > > > > > > > I asked similar some time ago [1], I am not using it (or not aware of anything that > > depends on it), so no objection to remove it. > > > > [1] > > http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/6f487e05-c40f-8445-247d-43f4dc3bf822@intel.com/ > > > > No objection. Going twice with me preparing the patch. -- David Marchand