Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #548

open

Information about problematic launches can't make its way to results database

Added by Alexey Khoroshilov over 13 years ago. Updated almost 13 years ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
Infrastructure
Start date:
11/15/2010
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Detected in build:
bdca68a
Platform:
Published in build:

Description

При проблемах в cmd-stream-extractor или INTERGRATION-ERROR (#547 и #536) информация о запуске не попадает в сервер статистики, из-за чего велик шанс пропустить появление таких проблем.


Related issues 1 (1 open0 closed)

Related to Linux Driver Verification - Feature #562: Stats server has to provide us with problems comparisonOpenEvgeny Novikov11/16/2010

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by Evgeny Novikov over 13 years ago

Corresponding user story is S-01013 03Dev: Извлечение internal errors и др. информации из логов (https://www12.v1host.com/ISPRAS/assetdetail.v1?oid=Story%3a1023).

Actions #2

Updated by Pavel Shved over 13 years ago

I told you. =P

The database schema was designed in such a way that information about what checks were requested is intentionally discarded, and the source of data are the launches that succeeded.

I'm not sure if there's a cheap way to redesign this.

Actions #3

Updated by Pavel Shved over 13 years ago

  • Subject changed from Проблемные запуски не попадают сервер статистики to Information about problematic launches can't make its way to results database
Actions #4

Updated by Pavel Shved over 13 years ago

  • Priority changed from High to Normal

It can't make its way into the release for three months, staiyng "High". Decreasing priority.

Actions #5

Updated by Pavel Shved almost 13 years ago

  • Category set to Infrastructure

That's funny. So, okay, yesterday I made some "problematic" launches go into the database. So now many "problematic" launches have the corresponding items in the data, and have the "unknown" verdict. Now, how do I analyze it? I see a transition from unsafe to unknown: is it a result of failure of some of our tools at some point—or is it a verifier degradation?

That means, we should first fix the feature #562.

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF