Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fail measurements if any of the jobs returned issues #389

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Dec 3, 2024

Conversation

olichtne
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

This is necessary to detect situation when something went wrong with the measurement and we should disqualify the measurement results from being fully trustworthy, e.g. for setting baselines.

Tests

Needs to be tested for all types of measurements, ideally with failures in the measurement process to see the changed results.

Reviews

@Axonis @enhaut @jtluka

Closes: #

This property indicates if the Measurement finished ok or if there were
any errors reported from the individual measurement test tool jobs that
invalidate the results.

The results can still be evaluated but they should be considered as
invalid for some use cases e.g. setting new baselines.

Signed-off-by: Ondrej Lichtner <[email protected]>
This is equivalent to the measurement_success so this is no longer
needed.

Signed-off-by: Ondrej Lichtner <[email protected]>
The measurement_success property is now exposed as the result value of
the MeasurementResult object.

Signed-off-by: Ondrej Lichtner <[email protected]>
Not using **kwargs means that it wasn't possible to use named init
arguments when creating a new instance of the object.

Signed-off-by: Ondrej Lichtner <[email protected]>
Axonis
Axonis previously approved these changes Nov 26, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@Axonis Axonis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Briefly discussed offline, as a hotfix to get rid of 0 measurements messing with rolling baselines this is good enough.

However moving forward, it would be better to either move some functionality of measurements to results or vice versa.

The 'result' name conflicts with the 'result' from the main for loop,
this overrides the value of the 'result' name which is used a few lines
lower to calculate measurement_success.

Signed-off-by: Ondrej Lichtner <[email protected]>
@jtluka
Copy link
Collaborator

jtluka commented Nov 26, 2024

Looks good.

jtluka
jtluka previously approved these changes Nov 26, 2024
For some reason this Aggregated class was missing the individual_results
property.

Signed-off-by: Ondrej Lichtner <[email protected]>
@olichtne
Copy link
Collaborator Author

olichtne commented Dec 2, 2024

testing done internally in beaker job J:10274482

i believe this is ready to be merged.

@jtluka
Copy link
Collaborator

jtluka commented Dec 2, 2024

Ack to merge.

@olichtne olichtne merged commit aa190bf into LNST-project:master Dec 3, 2024
3 checks passed
@olichtne olichtne deleted the fail-measurements branch December 3, 2024 07:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants