Test and deploy SUT agent 1.08

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

P1
normal
RESOLVED FIXED
6 years ago
3 months ago

People

(Reporter: armenzg, Assigned: armenzg)

Tracking

Details

(Whiteboard: live)

Attachments

(2 attachments, 7 obsolete attachments)

(Assignee)

Description

6 years ago
Created attachment 619939 [details] [diff] [review]
[wip] test updating to 1.08

I am testing:
http://people.mozilla.org/~jmaher/sutagent/SUTAgentAndroid108.apk

The patch also tests a patch in review by Callek:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=splinter.html&bug=741478&attachment=618465

My base starting revision is default rather than eba35f2aeabd which is currently used on buildbotcustom.
I think Platform Support is the right place for this...maybe Automation (General).
Component: Release Engineering → Release Engineering: Platform Support
QA Contact: release → coop
(Assignee)

Comment 2

6 years ago
I think there is something weird with the upgrade.
I think it makes the tegra board unusable.
I have tried upgrading tegra-018 and tegra-019.

## tegra-018.build.mtv1.mozilla.com
bash-3.2$ telnet 10.250.49.5 20701
Trying 10.250.49.5...
Connected to tegra-018.build.mtv1.mozilla.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
$>ver
SUTAgentAndroid Version 1.07
$>quit
quit
$>Connection closed by foreign host.
bash-3.2$ export SUT_NAME=tegra-019
bash-3.2$ python updateSUT.py 10.250.49.5
reconnecting socket
INFO: updateSUT.py: We're running SUTAgentAndroid Version 1.07
INFO: updateSUT.py: We're going to try to install SUTAgentAndroid Version 1.08
INFO: updateSUT.py: We're downloading the apk: http://build.mozilla.org/talos/mobile/sutAgentAndroid.1.08.apk
send cmd: updt com.mozilla.SUTAgentAndroid /mnt/sdcard/sutAgentAndroid.apk

recv'ing...
response: exit
$>
^@WARNING: updateSUT.py: We have tried to connect 1 time(s) after trying to update.
^@WARNING: updateSUT.py: We have tried to connect 2 time(s) after trying to update.
^@^@WARNING: updateSUT.py: We have tried to connect 3 time(s) after trying to update.
^@WARNING: updateSUT.py: We have tried to connect 4 time(s) after trying to update.
^@^@WARNING: updateSUT.py: We have tried to connect 5 time(s) after trying to update.
ERROR: updateSUT.py: We should have been able to get the version
ERROR: updateSUT.py: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'sendCMD'

Comment 3

6 years ago
Jmaher, can you take a look at this?
Created attachment 621982 [details] [diff] [review]
a few small tweaks to allow updateSUT to work (1.0)
Attachment #621982 - Flags: review?(armenzg)
(Assignee)

Comment 5

6 years ago
Comment on attachment 621982 [details] [diff] [review]
a few small tweaks to allow updateSUT to work (1.0)

The patch is empty.
Attachment #621982 - Flags: review?(armenzg)
Created attachment 622003 [details] [diff] [review]
patch with content in it (1.1)
Attachment #621982 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #622003 - Flags: review?(armenzg)
(Assignee)

Comment 7

6 years ago
I applied jmaher's patch to my file on people *and* grabbed the latest sut apk.
I will test this on staging with other boards.

foopy06:build cltbld$ python updateSUT.py 10.250.49.4
reconnecting socket
INFO: updateSUT.py: We're running SUTAgentAndroid Version 1.07
INFO: updateSUT.py: We're going to try to install SUTAgentAndroid Version 1.08
INFO: updateSUT.py: We're downloading the apk: http://build.mozilla.org/talos/mobile/sutAgentAndroid.1.08.apk
send cmd: updt com.mozilla.SUTAgentAndroid /mnt/sdcard/sutAgentAndroid.apk

recv'ing...
response: exit
$>
^@reconnecting socket
INFO: updateSUT.py: We're running SUTAgentAndroid Version 1.08
INFO: updateSUT.py: We're now running SUTAgentAndroid Version 1.08
(Assignee)

Comment 8

6 years ago
Created attachment 622055 [details] [diff] [review]
jmaher's patch plus URLException fixed
Attachment #619939 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #622003 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #622003 - Flags: review?(armenzg)
Attachment #622055 - Flags: review?(jmaher)
Attachment #622055 - Flags: review?(jmaher) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 9

6 years ago
Created attachment 622077 [details] [diff] [review]
upgrade to 1.08 plus Callek's patch

jmaher: this is a small interdiff. thanks for the previous review
Attachment #622055 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #622077 - Flags: review?(jmaher)
Attachment #622077 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Comment on attachment 622077 [details] [diff] [review]
upgrade to 1.08 plus Callek's patch

Review of attachment 622077 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

r=me with the comments addressed below.

::: sut_tools/updateSUT.py
@@ +36,5 @@
>           data = download_apk()
>      except Exception, e:
>           print "ERROR: updateSUT.py: We have failed to retrieve the SUT Agent. %s" % str(e)
>           return RETCODE_APK_DL_FAILED
> +    remoteAPK = apkfilename.split('/')[-1]

we can just use apkfilename since it is split out from the foopydir above, here and in 2 places below.

@@ +49,5 @@
>      ver = None
>      tries = 0
>      while tries < 5:
>          try:
> +            dm = connect(os.getenv('SUT_IP'), sleep=90)

connect is a boolean, you could put 1 or 31415926 in and it would act the same.  Making this a boolean (i.e. True) prevents some confusion in the future.
Attachment #622077 - Flags: review?(jmaher) → review+
Comment on attachment 622077 [details] [diff] [review]
upgrade to 1.08 plus Callek's patch

From what I can tell with my patch applied, the only change needed is the actual version at top of file. But that said, adding comments inline

>-def doUpdate(dm):
>+def doUpdate(dm, deviceIP):

With the change below (to use os.env) we don't use this anywhere

>-    dm.sendCMD(['push /mnt/sdcard/%s %s\r\n' % (apkfilename, str(len(data))), data], newline=False)
>+    remoteAPK = apkfilename.split('/')[-1]
>+    dm.sendCMD(['push /mnt/sdcard/%s %s\r\n' % (remoteAPK, str(len(data))), data], newline=False)
>     dm.debug = 5
>-    dm.sendCMD(['updt com.mozilla.SUTAgentAndroid /mnt/sdcard/%s' % apkfilename])
>+    dm.sendCMD(['updt com.mozilla.SUTAgentAndroid /mnt/sdcard/%s' % remoteAPK])

These changes are no longer necessary, since apkfilename is not a filepath anymore.

>-            dm = connect(deviceIP, sleep=90)
>+            dm = connect(os.getenv('SUT_IP'), sleep=90)

using sleep as a boolean is fine by me as joel suggested, but I chose not to change it in my patch -- up to you.

>-        return doUpdate(dm)
>+        return doUpdate(dm, deviceIP)

see above

r+ given what I said above.
Attachment #622077 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 12

6 years ago
Created attachment 622821 [details] [diff] [review]
[tools] update SUT to 1.08
Attachment #622821 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
(Assignee)

Comment 13

6 years ago
Created attachment 622823 [details] [diff] [review]
[buildbotcustom] use newer updateSUT.py
Attachment #622077 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 622821 [details] [diff] [review]
[tools] update SUT to 1.08

Review of attachment 622821 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

would rather have had the non-ver changes in a separate bug than tied here (since its harder to go back in time and find reasons for them) but not worth the trouble since they are in this patch and quite minor
Attachment #622821 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review+
Comment on attachment 622823 [details] [diff] [review]
[buildbotcustom] use newer updateSUT.py

Need to add in the sut_lib get here as well, like you have locally for your testing
Attachment #622823 - Flags: review-
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Assignee: nobody → armenzg
Priority: -- → P1
Whiteboard: to be deployed 2012/05/14
(Assignee)

Comment 16

6 years ago
Created attachment 623657 [details] [diff] [review]
[buildbotcustom] use newer updateSUT.py
Attachment #622823 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #623657 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)

Comment 17

6 years ago
Comment on attachment 623657 [details] [diff] [review]
[buildbotcustom] use newer updateSUT.py

did you mean to have a real revision number in the wget for updateSUT.py?
Attachment #623657 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review-
(Assignee)

Comment 18

6 years ago
Comment on attachment 622821 [details] [diff] [review]
[tools] update SUT to 1.08

http://hg.mozilla.org/build/tools/rev/16fc4f354b44
Attachment #622821 - Flags: checked-in+
(Assignee)

Comment 19

6 years ago
Created attachment 623669 [details] [diff] [review]
[buildbotcustom] use newer updateSUT.py

with revision.
Attachment #623657 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #623669 - Flags: review?(bear)

Comment 20

6 years ago
Comment on attachment 623669 [details] [diff] [review]
[buildbotcustom] use newer updateSUT.py

r+'ing only to get this out of the ateam blocking status
Attachment #623669 - Flags: review?(bear) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 21

6 years ago
Comment on attachment 623669 [details] [diff] [review]
[buildbotcustom] use newer updateSUT.py

http://hg.mozilla.org/build/buildbotcustom/rev/36b6b4b6d9d4
Attachment #623669 - Flags: checked-in+
(Assignee)

Comment 22

6 years ago
All foopies have been updated to:
16fc4f354b44

I will now be watching that everything stays put.
Whiteboard: to be deployed 2012/05/14 → live
(Assignee)

Comment 23

6 years ago
A change from this bug landed on the default branches of either buildbot-configs or buildbotcustom.
Such change has been merged as of ~8:30 AM PDT into the production branches and the buildbot masters have been reconfigured.
This if FYI and a note has been added to the maintenance page:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/ReleaseEngineering:Maintenance#Reconfigs_.2F_Deployments
You forgot to update foopy24 tools along with the others, and explains why foopy24 was exhibiting lots of issues per philor today.

I just updated it, and will check the other foopies shortly, for sanity.
(Assignee)

Comment 25

6 years ago
(In reply to Justin Wood (:Callek) from comment #24)
> You forgot to update foopy24 tools along with the others, and explains why
> foopy24 was exhibiting lots of issues per philor today.
> 

I rock...not :(

Now I know that 24 is the last one of the foopies. All the other ones were updated so no need to check.

Thanks Callek. sorry.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Product: mozilla.org → Release Engineering
Component: Platform Support → Buildduty
Product: Release Engineering → Infrastructure & Operations
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.