Bug 603719 - Providing parameters to a test has no effect
Summary: Providing parameters to a test has no effect
Alias: None
Product: Beaker
Classification: Community
Component: beah (Show other bugs)
(Show other bugs)
Version: 0.5
Hardware: All Linux
medium vote
Target Milestone: 0.5.52
Assignee: Raymond Mancy
QA Contact:
Keywords: Regression
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2010-06-14 12:38 UTC by Petr Šplíchal
Modified: 2016-06-01 01:39 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-08-05 17:56:04 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Petr Šplíchal 2010-06-14 12:38:43 UTC
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">
            <param name="PROTOCOLS" value="IPv4 IPv6"/>

The actual job run IPv4 test only. Manual testing with


works as expected and runs both IPv4 and IPv6 subtests.


Passing parameters confirmed to work in RHTS. Marking as
regression and suggesting a blocker.

Comment 1 Bill Peck 2010-06-14 12:53:59 UTC
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.

Comment 2 Bill Peck 2010-06-14 13:21:36 UTC
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?

Comment 3 Petr Šplíchal 2010-06-14 13:36:29 UTC
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 :-)

Comment 4 Petr Šplíchal 2010-06-14 13:39:03 UTC
By the way, this should be documented. I could not find any
mention about passing paramaters to tests in the User Guide.

Comment 5 Bill Peck 2010-06-21 12:50:56 UTC

Can you document?

Comment 6 Chris Ward 2010-07-13 12:09:14 UTC
+1 on documenting this. I just pinged around looking for this info and found it here or all places :)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.