Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] dts: add SUT cleanup to framework

[Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1692 bytes --]

On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 2:58 PM Dean Marx <dmarx@iol.unh.edu> wrote:

>
> -                sut_node.tear_down_test_run()
> +                sut_node.tear_down_test_run(test_run_config.dpdk_config)
>

My first question was why is there a need to pass all of dpdk_config
through from here all the way to cleanup_sut()? Is it sufficient to extract
dpdk_location from dpdk_config at the beginning here, and pass along just
dpdk_location?


>                  tg_node.tear_down_test_run()
>                  test_run_result.update_teardown(Result.PASS)
>              except Exception as e:
> diff --git a/dts/framework/testbed_model/sut_node.py
> b/dts/framework/testbed_model/sut_node.py
> index 14d77c50a6..d39c1bd632 100644
> --- a/dts/framework/testbed_model/sut_node.py
> +++ b/dts/framework/testbed_model/sut_node.py
> @@ -175,6 +175,21 @@ def path_to_devbind_script(self) -> PurePath | str:
>              )
>          return self._path_to_devbind_script
>
> +    def cleanup_sut(
> +        self, dpdk_build_config: DPDKBuildConfiguration, remote_tree: str
> | PurePath | None
>

I understand the need for str or PurePath, but can you explain why None is
included in the union?


> --
> 2.44.0
>
>
There was also discussion at the previous DTS meeting about appending the
datetime to the dpdk artifacts when they're copied over to the SUT (a way
to create artifact uniqueness). It's not really within the scope of this
patchseries, but it wouldn't hurt for us to touch base - maybe you can do
this next.

Looks good to me overall. Once you submit the v2 I will leave a little time
for other comments, otherwise I will merge.

Thanks Dean.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2509 bytes --]