Re: [Xen-devel] [OSSTEST PATCH 7/9] ts-hosts-allocate-Executive: Score for equivalent previous failures

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [OSSTEST PATCH 7/9] ts-hosts-allocate-Executive: 
Score for equivalent previous failures"):
> On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 19:41 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > +   if ($candrow->{restype} eq 'host') {
> > +       $equivstatusq->execute($job,$fi->{intended},$fi->{branch},
> > +                              $hid->{Ident},$candrow->{resname});
> > +       my $esrow = $equivstatusq->fetchrow_hashref();
> 
> For the first flight on a new branch (or perhaps a new blessing), this
> will return an undef, because there is no previous flight to match,
> won't it?

Yes.

> http://search.cpan.org/~timb/DBI-1.632/DBI.pm#fetchrow_hashref says if
> you get an undef you should check $equivstatusq->err to see if that was
> due to an error vs. empty result set. Not sure if you'll care given this
> is all heuristics though.

We turn on the automatic error trapping during db setup, so errors
helpfully turn into die.

> > +       $candrow->{EquivMostRecentStatus} = $esrow->{status};
> 
> Meaning this will fail, or perhaps just produce a warning.

$ perl -MData::Dumper -we 'use strict; my $y; print Dumper($y->{foo});'
$VAR1 = undef;
$

> > +       print DEBUG "$dbg EQUIV-MOST-RECENT ";
> > +       print DEBUG ("$esrow->{flight}.$esrow->{job}".
> > +                    " $esrow->{val} $esrow->{status}") if $esrow;
> > +       print DEBUG ".\n";
> 
> And so will these?

  if $esrow;

> > @@ -505,12 +543,15 @@ sub hid_recurse ($$) {
> >  
> >      my $cost= $start_time
> >     + $duration_for_cost
> > -        - $previously_failed * 366*86400
> > +        - ($previously_failed      ==@hids ? 366*86400 :
> > +      $previously_failed_equiv==@hids ? 365*86400 :
> > +      0)
> 
> You've dropped the behaviour of multiplying 366*86400 by
> $previously_failed, was that intentional?

Yes.  $previously_failed was the number of candidate hosts which had
previous failures.  Making the offset proportional to the number of
hosts in the test is daft.

> I think you've also gone to giving a bonus at all only if all @hids
> previously failed, instead of just at least one of them.

Yes.

Should I write this better in the commit message ?

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel