-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
iperf3 test will fail if CAN interface can't set to up #233
Comments
This thread was migrated from launchpad.net https://launchpad.net/~bladernr wrote on 2022-06-10 17:46:35:I'm not sure what the fix is here... it would be interesting to know what the status of can0 is before testing. It's failing because it's, as you pointed out, tryign to bring up can0 after testing because that's identified as a network device. are canbus interfaces tested in this manner? Maybe we could just add some discriminiation to the code to ignore can interfaces in that script completely? Another, more complex option, would be to make it more stateful so that it tracks the state of all devices and then restores them to their previous state after testing (so if can0 is down initially, it stays down, but if can0 is up initially, an attempt is made to restore it). I think, though, that overall the behaviour is correct, if interfaces fail to come up after testing that SHOULD come up, then we want the test to fail to trigger deeper investigation to determine why it's failing to come up. https://launchpad.net/~rickwu4444 wrote on 2022-06-13 01:25:18:@jeff, |
Is anyone trying to fix this? |
Thank you for reporting us your feedback! The internal ticket has been created: https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/CHECKBOX-1280.
|
This issue was migrated from https://bugs.launchpad.net/plainbox-provider-checkbox/+bug/1978265
Summary
Description
[Summary]
ethernet/iperf3 test result will be fail if DUT has CAN interface. And seems the iperf performance is normal, but it fail while trying to bring up CAN interface.
INFO:root:Testing eno1 against 10.102.88.25
INFO:root:Have successfully pinged 10.102.88.25 on eno1
INFO:root:-------------------- Test Run Number 1 --------------------
INFO:root:Using 1 thread.
INFO:root:Connecting to port 5201 on server....
INFO:root:Avg Transfer speed: 938.6555555555556 Mb/s
INFO:root:93.87% of theoretical max 1000 Mb/s
INFO:root:Average CPU utilization: 10.4%
INFO:root:
INFO:root:-------------------- Test Run Number 2 --------------------
INFO:root:Using 1 thread.
INFO:root:Connecting to port 5201 on server....
INFO:root:Avg Transfer speed: 938.8333333333334 Mb/s
INFO:root:93.88% of theoretical max 1000 Mb/s
INFO:root:Average CPU utilization: 10.0%
INFO:root:
INFO:root:-------------------- Test Run Number 3 --------------------
INFO:root:Using 1 thread.
INFO:root:Connecting to port 5201 on server....
INFO:root:Avg Transfer speed: 938.6444444444444 Mb/s
INFO:root:93.86% of theoretical max 1000 Mb/s
INFO:root:Average CPU utilization: 9.6%
INFO:root:
INFO:root:-------------------- Test Run Number 4 --------------------
INFO:root:Using 1 thread.
INFO:root:Connecting to port 5201 on server....
INFO:root:Avg Transfer speed: 938.8333333333334 Mb/s
INFO:root:93.88% of theoretical max 1000 Mb/s
INFO:root:Average CPU utilization: 9.5%
INFO:root:
RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
ERROR:root:Failed to restore can0:Command '['ip', 'link', 'set', 'dev', 'can0', 'up']' returned non-zero exit status 2.
Please refer to submission[1] for more detail.
[1]https://certification.canonical.com/hardware/202201-29905/submission/265067/test-results/fail/
[Step to reproduce]
[Expected result]
iperf test should pass without any error.
[Actual result]
iperf test case will fail, but the result of performance is good.
Seems to be case failed due to restore can interface fail.
ERROR:root:Failed to restore can0:Command '['ip', 'link', 'set', 'dev', 'can0', 'up']' returned non-zero exit status 2.
[Failure rate]
100%
Attachments
No attachments
Tags:
[]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: