Open Stack

I believe I've identified the bug - it seems to have occurred when restarting the Citrix CI system while the tests were in the process of being run, leading it to believe that they had not been invoked yet and therefore triggering the tests on that node a second time.

I've implemented a fix - thanks for letting us know.

Bob
________________________________________
From: Bob Ball
Sent: 23 February 2014 20:29
To: David Kranz; #OpenStack External Email
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: RE: [qa] Can't interpret failure from XenServer CI

Hi David,

That's a very strange error - it basically means the node has been used for running a test already (both the first error in run_tests.log about the git repository also existing, and the more fatal error about vif 3 existing)

I believe this was my fault - I should have purged all negative results before allowing the CI to post them, or at least re-tested them.

You're right in the comment that "citrix recheck" will only re-trigger this test and it is currently being tested.  It is currently running and therefore a proper result should be available soon.

I will re-queue all of the "Failed" jobs so that a new XS testing result will be posted overnight.

Bob
________________________________________
From: David Kranz [dkranz at redhat.com]
Sent: 23 February 2014 20:06
To: #OpenStack External Email
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: [qa] Can't interpret failure from XenServer CI

XenServer reported failure on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/73704.
The pointer to the logs should look like a jenkins failure but does not
in two ways. First, there is no console log, with a directory of other
log files next to it. Second, the .gz log files are not set up to be
downloaded as text as they are in the jenkins link. I took a guess that
http://ca.downloads.xensource.com/OpenStack/xenserver-ci/refs/changes/04/73704/14/run_tests.log
might contain the console output. It has a bunch of errors that
obviously have nothing to do with the changed code.

What are reviewers supposed to do when seeing such a failure?

  -David