From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-11 01:35:22
I'm not quite sure I understand the problem. In each phase's section, you
are supposed to identify the one (or more) predecessor phase sections. For
example, in MPI install phases, you specify an "mpi_get" field that
indicates which MPI get phases should be built with this install section:
[MPI Get: foo]
...
[MPI Get: bar]
....
[MPI Install: whatever]
Mpi_get = foo,bar
The "whatever" MPI install section will build both the "foo" and "bar" MPI
get sections. This is also true with test get, build, and run phases.
[Test get: foo]
...
[Test build: bar]
Test_get = foo
[test run: baz]
Test_build = bar
These "back pointer" fields refer backwards to its parent/predecessor phase.
They can also be comma-delimited lists of phase names (just like the
"mpi_get" field in the MPI install phase) to help prevent duplication in the
ini file.
So MTT does not assume or require that test get, build, and run phases all
have the same base phase name (e.g., [test get: intel], [test build: intel],
[test run: intel]). You just have to link up names correctly with the
corresponding "back pointer" field names.
Having said all that, does this make your problem easier? I'm not entirely
sure I understand the problem, so I'm not entirely sure that this is the
answer. :-)
On 10/9/06 5:39 PM, "Ethan Mallove" <ethan.mallove_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> To answer my own question, apparently Test Get/Build/Run
> section labels must indeed match up
> (http://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/mtt/wiki/MTTOverview). To
> work within these confines, I am instead breaking up my ini
> file into several ini files (see below), and have created a
> wrapper script to cat in only the specific platform/bitness
> ini files I want to test.
>
> trunk.ini
> v1.0.ini
> v1.1.ini
> v1.2.ini
> ompi-core-template.ini
> build-intel-i386-32.ini
> build-intel-i386-64.ini
> build-intel-sparc-32.ini
> build-intel-sparc-64.ini
> mpi-install-i386-32.ini
> mpi-install-i386-64.ini
> mpi-install-sparc-32.ini
> mpi-install-sparc-64.ini
> reporter.ini
>
> E.g.,
>
> cat $mttdir/build-intel-$arch-$bit.ini " \
> $mttdir/mpi-install-$arch-$bit.ini " \
> $mttdir/ompi-core-template.ini " \
> $mttdir/reporter.ini " \
> $mttdir/$branch.ini " | \
> client/mtt [...]
> --scratch ./$scratch " \
> mttdatabase_platform='Sun $bit-bit' " \
> mpi_get='ompi-nightly-$branch'
>
> I think things were more manageable all in one file. I
> don't suppose there's an easy way to allow this using an ini
> parameter (e.g., suite_name), versus the section name after
> the ':'?
>
> -Ethan
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct/09/2006 10:58:55AM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
>> My intel tests compile okay, but then do not run.
>> Here's the salient --debug output:
>>
>> ...
>>>> Test build [test build: intel sparc 32]
>> Evaluating: intel
>> Building for [ompi-nightly-v1.2] / [1.2a1r12050] /
>> [solaris sparc 32] / [intel sparc 32]
>> Evaluating: Intel_OMPI_Tests
>> Making dir: tests (cwd:
>> /workspace/em162155/hpc/mtt/cron/ompi-core-testers/sparc/32/installs/ompi-nig
>> htly-v1.2/solaris_sparc_32/1.2a1r12050)
>> tests does not exist -- creating
>> Making dir: intel_sparc_32 (cwd:
>> /workspace/em162155/hpc/mtt/cron/ompi-core-testers/sparc/32/installs/ompi-nig
>> htly-v1.2/solaris_sparc_32/1.2a1r12050/tests)
>>
>> ...
>> OUT:[[[ END OF COMPILE ]]]
>> OUT:Compile complete. Log in all_tests_no_perf.12950.out
>> OUT:Start: Mon Oct 9 02:48:19 EDT 2006
>> OUT:End: Mon Oct 9 03:05:28 EDT 2006
>> Command complete, exit status: 0
>> Writing built file:
>> /workspace/em162155/hpc/mtt/cron/ompi-core-testers/sparc/32/installs/ompi-nig
>> htly-v1.2/solaris_sparc_32/1.2a1r12050/tests/intel_sparc_32/intel_tests/test_
>> built.ini
>> ...
>> Completed test build successfully
>> ...
>>>> Test run [intel]
>> Evaluating: intel (how come no tests get run?)
>>>> Test run [ibm]
>>
>> Is this because my "Test get" sections do not match my "Test
>> build" and "Test run" sections?
>>
>> [Test get: intel]
>> [Test build: intel sparc 32]
>> [Test build: intel sparc 64]
>> [Test build: intel i386 32]
>> [Test build: intel i386 64]
>> [Test run: intel]
>>
>> If so, it might be nice to get a "no match found" warning
>> of some kind.
>>
>> -Ethan
>> _______________________________________________
>> mtt-users mailing list
>> mtt-users_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-users
> _______________________________________________
> mtt-users mailing list
> mtt-users_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mtt-users
-- Jeff Squyres Server Virtualization Business Unit Cisco Systems