Skip to content

src: lava_callback: handle artifacts uploaded from test jobs #1141

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

a-wai
Copy link
Contributor

@a-wai a-wai commented May 6, 2025

Test jobs might need to upload artifacts directly from LAVA (this is needed e.g. for GCOV data when checking for code coverage), but we currently have no way to add those artifacts to the corresponding node.

Add such a feature in a rather generic way, so jobs can provide both the artifact name and its URL through a specially-formatted result entry:

artifact-upload:<artifact name>:<artifact URL>

Therefore, all test results starting with artifact-upload: will be processed and stored in the corresponding node's artifacts dict, with <artifact name> being the entry key and <artifact URL> being its value.

Test jobs might need to upload artifacts directly from LAVA (this is
needed e.g. for GCOV data when checking for code coverage), but we
currently have no way to add those artifacts to the corresponding node.

Add such a feature in a rather generic way, so jobs can provide both the
artifact name and its URL through a specially-formatted result entry:

  artifact-upload:<artifact name>:<artifact URL>

Therefore, all test results starting with `artifact-upload:` will be
processed and stored in the corresponding node's `artifacts` dict, with
`<artifact name>` being the entry key and `<artifact URL>` being its
value.

Signed-off-by: Arnaud Ferraris <[email protected]>
@tollsimy
Copy link

tollsimy commented May 6, 2025

Hi @a-wai could it be solved by #1140 ?
We added a way to introduce input artifacts in kernelci/kcidb-io#99, but I am not sure it will fix your issue.

@a-wai
Copy link
Contributor Author

a-wai commented May 7, 2025

Hi @tollsimy!
No, this is a vastly different issue I'm trying to address: #1140 retrieves input files from jobs by looking at the deploy actions, while this PR retrieves output files that are generated during the tests, created and uploaded by the DUT.

@tollsimy
Copy link

tollsimy commented May 7, 2025

@a-wai Got it, that makes sense, thanks!

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.

2 participants