bunsen (re)design discussion #1: testrun & branch identifiers, testrun representation
Keith Seitz
keiths@redhat.com
Thu Apr 7 16:42:04 GMT 2022
On 3/14/22 10:24, Serhei Makarov wrote:
> Given the weak correspondence between Testrun/Testcase objects, we end
> up needing a set of explicit ser/de methods under the hood, just as
> with the JSON representation.
In Sept 2020, I played with this a bit, and I have old (probably stale)
patches lying around to let SQLite do the serialization. The patches
do nothing to replace the JSON or the presented data model.
I reported my initial findings here:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/bunsen/2020q3/000034.html
If you'd like to peek at that work, I can send it along, but
it is probably quite bit-rot by now.
> My current understanding of the schema would be as follows:
>
> - testruns (testrun_id, project, testlogs_commit_id)
> - ANALYSIS_testrun_kvs (testrun_id, key, value)
> - For analysis results that annotate the original testrun.
> - testrun_kv_types (project, key, schema)
> - We will probably need to store some 'schema' information like this.
> - testcases (testrun_id, name, outcome, subtest_id)
> - subtest_strs (subtest_id, subtest_text)
>
> According to your vision, there would also need to be additional
> tables for analysis results which don't follow the format of testrun
> key-value annotations. Not relevant just yet, and we may need to
> decide a different schema for each category of analysis (diff, grid
> view, regression report, etc.).
I have a prototype schema just to record test data. Bunsen's git repo
is still used to store the actual .sum/.log files and provide commit
IDs to identify a particular testrun, i.e., no bunsne metadata.
Keith
More information about the Bunsen
mailing list