[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 'check-avocado' fails after c03f57fd5b ("Revert "tests: Use separate
From: |
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé |
Subject: |
Re: 'check-avocado' fails after c03f57fd5b ("Revert "tests: Use separate ...") |
Date: |
Tue, 5 Sep 2023 16:46:22 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 |
On 5/9/23 15:13, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
Hi,
I managed to work around it. I'll post here the debugs for future
reference.
- I got suspicious after the above command failure, and noticed that
'avocado' didn't work
even outside of the QEMU tree:
[danielhb@grind ~]$ avocado --help
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/avocado", line 33, in <module>
sys.exit(load_entry_point('avocado-framework==92.0',
92.0 should be fine...
python/setup.cfg:37: avocado-framework >= 90.0
python/tests/minreqs.txt:26:avocado-framework==90.0
pythondeps.toml:30:# avocado-framework, for example right now the limit
is 92.x.
pythondeps.toml:31:avocado-framework = { accepted = "(>=88.1, <93.0)",
installed = "88.1", canary = "avocado" }
- Turns out that I had 2 avocado versions installed: one from F38 and
other from pip.
If I remove the 'pip' version I got a different error:
(01/13) tests/avocado/empty_cpu_model.py:EmptyCPUModel.test: STARTED
(06/13)
tests/avocado/tuxrun_baselines.py:TuxRunBaselineTest.test_riscv64:
ERROR: Test.__init__() got an unexpected keyword argument
'run.results_dir' (0.04 s)
(...)
(01/13) tests/avocado/empty_cpu_model.py:EmptyCPUModel.test: ERROR:
Test.__init__() got an unexpected keyword argument 'run.results_dir'
(0.04 s)
(...)
- Which seems to be related to a known bug according to:
https://avocado-framework.readthedocs.io/en/101.0/releases/100_1.html
In the end I don't need 'avocado' outside of testing QEMU, so my
solution was to
remove all avocado packages from the system and let QEMU install
whatever it is
needed inside pyvenv. 'check-avocado' now works in 'master'. I am still
unsure
why this particular patch triggered all this problem here, but I don't
believe
this is worth pursuing unless other people starts to see problems. For
now we
can leave it as is IMO.