911953 - Consider switching off fedora B2G emulator jobs on cedar

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Release Engineering :: General, defect)

Description

[Ed Morley [:emorley]]

On all trees apart from cedar (that are running the full-stack B2G builds), we run the test jobs on EC2. On Cedar we run then on both EC2 and the old fedora pool, eg:
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Cedar&showall=1&jobname=_emulator

Now that the dust has settled, post switchover, I think we can turn off the fedora jobs on Cedar too.

Unless I'm missing something?

Comment 1

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

Note that on b2g18*, we currently duplicate a lot of tests on both the rev3 and ec2 slaves. I see no problem with doing the same as we do for m-c, though.

Comment 2

[Ed Morley [:emorley]]

(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM UTC-4] from comment #1)
> Note that on b2g18*, we currently duplicate a lot of tests on both the rev3
> and ec2 slaves. I see no problem with doing the same as we do for m-c,
> though.

Yeah we should probably turn some of those b2g18 dupes off as well...

Comment 3

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

Rail would know about the fedora/ubuntu split on Cedar.

Comment 4

[Rail Aliiev [:rail]]

Patch incoming.

Comment 5

[Rail Aliiev [:rail]]

Attachment: platform clean up

The patch:

* resets cedar to run only preset (REFTEST + MARIONETTE) and JSREFTEST on cedar on fedora
* Disables ALL debug tests on fedora on cedar. They are red on cedar and aren't used on any branch
* Enables all tests + JSREFTEST on ubuntu64_vm-b2g-emulator on cedar
* Resets mozilla-b2g18 and mozilla-b2g18_v1_1_0_hd branches to use fedora only for REFTEST + MARIONETTE. MOCHITEST + CRASHTEST + XPCSHELL are green on Ubuntu on these branches.

Config dump diff: https://gist.github.com/rail/6428638

Comment 6

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

Comment on attachment 799061 [details] [diff] [review]
platform clean up

>-BRANCHES['mozilla-b2g18']['platforms']['emulator']['fedora-b2g-emulator']['opt_unittest_suites'] = [x for x in ALL_UNITTESTS if x not in REFTEST] + REFTEST_SANITY
>+BRANCHES['mozilla-b2g18']['platforms']['emulator']['fedora-b2g-emulator']['opt_unittest_suites'] += REFTEST_SANITY
> BRANCHES['mozilla-b2g18_v1_0_1']['repo_path'] = "releases/mozilla-b2g18_v1_0_1"
> BRANCHES['mozilla-b2g18_v1_1_0_hd']['repo_path'] = "releases/mozilla-b2g18_v1_1_0_hd"
>-BRANCHES['mozilla-b2g18_v1_1_0_hd']['platforms']['emulator']['fedora-b2g-emulator']['opt_unittest_suites'] = [x for x in ALL_UNITTESTS if x not in REFTEST] + REFTEST_SANITY
>+BRANCHES['mozilla-b2g18_v1_1_0_hd']['platforms']['emulator']['fedora-b2g-emulator']['opt_unittest_suites'] += REFTEST_SANITY

I think these 2 lines are because reftest is busted on b2g18*; we only run reftest sanity there.

r=me without these two changes.

Comment 7

[Rail Aliiev [:rail]]

Ah, I'll prep another patch then

Comment 8

[Rail Aliiev [:rail]]

Attachment: platform clean up

* same for cedar
* b2g18 runs only marionette and reftest sanity on fedora

https://gist.github.com/rail/6428840

Comment 9

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

Comment on attachment 799066 [details] [diff] [review]
platform clean up

We don't have ubuntu on b2g18*, so I'm still going to say r=me without the b2g18 lines.

Comment 10

[Rail Aliiev [:rail]]

(In reply to Aki Sasaki [:aki] from comment #9)
> Comment on attachment 799066 [details] [diff] [review]
> platform clean up
> 
> We don't have ubuntu on b2g18*, so I'm still going to say r=me without the
> b2g18 lines.

Huh? https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Mozilla-B2g18&showall=1&jobname=emulator_vm are Ubuntu, no?

Comment 11

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

It's emulator, not linux desktop.
Are we turning off linux desktop tests in favor of emulator tests?

Comment 12

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

<- confused, hang on.

Comment 13

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

[13:50]	<aki>	rail: ok, a) was confused and b) emulator fedora+ubuntu appear to be the same tbpl line. r=me with those last two changes included

Comment 14

[Rail Aliiev [:rail]]

Comment on attachment 799066 [details] [diff] [review]
platform clean up

https://hg.mozilla.org/build/buildbot-configs/rev/30b91aa1bb9c

Comment 15

[Ed Morley [:emorley]]

(In reply to Aki Sasaki [:aki] from comment #13)
> emulator fedora+ubuntu appear to be the same tbpl line

They were combined in the TBPL UI recently, in bug 911956.

Comment 16

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

This is in production, but why didn't we do this for all branches? AFAICT we still run duplicate tests on try, mozilla-central, and elsewhere...

Comment 17

[Ed Morley [:emorley]]

(In reply to Ben Hearsum [:bhearsum] from comment #16)
> This is in production, but why didn't we do this for all branches? AFAICT we
> still run duplicate tests on try, mozilla-central, and elsewhere...

I can't see any dupes?
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?showall=1&jobname=_emulator
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?showall=1&tree=Try&jobname=_emulator

Comment 18

[Rail Aliiev [:rail]]

(In reply to Ben Hearsum [:bhearsum] from comment #16)
> This is in production, but why didn't we do this for all branches? AFAICT we
> still run duplicate tests on try, mozilla-central, and elsewhere...

Now we should run duplicates only on Cedar and only for test types not switched yet to Ubuntu.

Comment 19

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

(In reply to Ed Morley [:edmorley UTC+1] from comment #17)
> (In reply to Ben Hearsum [:bhearsum] from comment #16)
> > This is in production, but why didn't we do this for all branches? AFAICT we
> > still run duplicate tests on try, mozilla-central, and elsewhere...
> 
> I can't see any dupes?
> https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?showall=1&jobname=_emulator
> https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?showall=1&tree=Try&jobname=_emulator

You're right, I was confused.

(In reply to Rail Aliiev [:rail] from comment #18)
> (In reply to Ben Hearsum [:bhearsum] from comment #16)
> > This is in production, but why didn't we do this for all branches? AFAICT we
> > still run duplicate tests on try, mozilla-central, and elsewhere...
> 
> Now we should run duplicates only on Cedar and only for test types not
> switched yet to Ubuntu.

Ah, I see.

Comment 20

[Rail Aliiev [:rail]]

Looks OK to me.

Comment 21

[Ed Morley [:emorley]]

Thank you! :-)