Bug 603719
| Summary: | Providing parameters to a test has no effect | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Retired] Beaker | Reporter: | Petr Šplíchal <psplicha> |
| Component: | beah | Assignee: | Raymond Mancy <rmancy> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 0.5 | CC: | bpeck, cward, ebaak, kbaker, mcsontos, ohudlick, rmancy |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Regression |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2010-08-05 17:56:04 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
Hi Petr, Can you tell me how you ran this job? using the new bkr workflow-simple command? I think I may have not implemented --task-param correctly. At least not like old single_workflow. If you notice above the param is PROTOCOLS in the xml and your test seems to expect TEST_PARAM_PROTOCOLS. Should I be pre-pending TEST_PARAM_ to? Seems bad to me to hard code that. I've cloned the job and pre-pended TEST_PARAM_ to see if that will work. I confirmed that it works when the correct param is passed. I'm just waiting on feedback on how this should be dealt with. I don't think pre-pending TEST_PARAM_ to everything passed in is a great idea. What if I have a test that expects a param that doesn't have TEST_PARAM_ as the begining? Oh, I see. So it's only a different behavior in Beaker. But I must admit I like the new way better. +1 for not prepending the awkward prefix. Perhaps, for backward compatibility the TEST_PARAM_* should be set as well. But I don't know how many people/old tests this affects. I can happily live without the ugly prefix :-) By the way, this should be documented. I could not find any mention about passing paramaters to tests in the User Guide. Ray, Can you document? +1 on documenting this. I just pinged around looking for this info and found it here or all places :) |
Description of problem: I've scheduled a job with a parameter passed to the test. However, it seems it did not have any effect. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Version - 0.5.42 Snip from the job XML: <task name="/CoreOS/httpd/Multihost/stress" role="SERVERS"> <params> <param name="PROTOCOLS" value="IPv4 IPv6"/> </params> </task> The actual job run IPv4 test only. Manual testing with export TEST_PARAM_PROTOCOLS="IPv4 IPv6" works as expected and runs both IPv4 and IPv6 subtests. https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/jobs/2935 Passing parameters confirmed to work in RHTS. Marking as regression and suggesting a blocker.