On 7 February 2011 02:05, David Gilbert <david.gilbert@linaro.org> wrote:

On 4 February 2011 21:53, Paul Larson <paul.larson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Mirsad, I'm looking at the recent edits to
> https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Validation/Specs/ValidationScheduler and
> wanted to start a thread to discuss. Would love to hear thoughts from
> others as well.
>
> We could probably use some more in the way of implementation details, but
> this is starting to take shape pretty well, good work. I have a few
> comments below:
>
>> Admin users can also cancel any scheduled jobs.
> Job submitters should be allowed to cancel their own jobs too, right?
>
> I think in general, the user stories need tweaking. Many of them center
> around automatic scheduling of jobs based on some event (adding a machine,
> adding a test, etc). Based on the updated design, this kind of logic would
> be in the piece we were referring to as the driver. The scheduler shouldn't
> be making those decisions on its own, but it should provide an interface for
> both humans to schedule jobs (web, cli) as well as and api for machines
> (driver) to do this.

I'd like to add as user stories:
Dave wants to rerun a test on a particular machine to see if a
failure is machine specific.

An initial idea we had was to run jobs based on machine type, i.e. BeagleBoard, not on a particular machine, i.e. BeagleBoard_ID001. The dispatcher would choose on which particular machine to run, depending on availability. I understand your point when running on a particular machine is desirable, but maybe this feature should be enabled for admins trying to track a deviating hardware? Or maybe this is a user story for dashboard, to have a feature comparing and presenting results from all machines of the same type, or even in broader aspect for chosen/all machine types we support?

Dave wants to run the same test on a set of machines to compare the results.

This is almost same as first. Maybe the better solution, as I wrote above, is to go to dashboard and compare all the existing results there instead? This assumes of course that there are results already reported for wanted hardware, which I think would be a case if looking at weekly execution intervals, but probably not daily. What do you think, is this reasonable enough or am I missing something important?

I'd also like for there to be history available for each machine stuff
has run on; e.g. knowing
that a machine has just been reinstalled or been updated might help
you understand a failure.

Exactly, I agree. I think this will be solved by the dispatcher when reporting test results to the dashboard. The results in the dashboard should include that information, and even keep history, so I guess it is only to present the information in the desirable format.

Dave