yet another controversial bug, but if we want panda boards to be automated we either need to take this or somebody else needs to debug. This adds relay.py which :ted wrote to powercycle the panda boards. This also instruments the sut_tools code to use relay.py as a default and fall back to the dm.reboot. In the current implementation it will fail to cycle if the device is not a panda board, so this conveniently resolves backwards compatibility with the tegras :) One place this doesn't change things is inside of cleanup.py. We do a dm.uninstallAppAndReboot() which reboots the device. Of course this assumes that the device is in a state to reboot via sutagent which sometimes it won't. In my final patch in bug 781341 this is reworked to only use dm.uninstallApp() which doesn't reboot and we will pdu_cycle iff we have uninstalled.

Comment on attachment 667983 [details] [diff] [review] add pdu_cycle to sut_tools and use it instead of dm.reboot for panda boards (1.0) Review of attachment 667983 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Besides being bitrotted, I'm not a fan of the csv use here, I'm also not a fan of splitting up the decision to dm.reboot vs pdu/relay cycle throughout so many files. So I will attach a file in a bit, f? to kim for her opinions, and r? to joel instead. I recognize my patch will bitrot Bug 781341 as well, but I THIS patch will seperate from a new patch I'll be writing there in the same way this bug and that bug were already seperated.

I didn't get around to staging this tonight, as I planned, will do that tomorrow on the tegra-staging machines, for sanity there. Will stage with kim's panda foopies once I roll in a Bug 781341 and then compare against the changes she has there, to be sure I don't regress any of her local changes.

Comment on attachment 674988 [details] [diff] [review] do relay-reboot for pandas, adds pandas to devices.json Review of attachment 674988 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- I think the soft_reboot name is confusing. At first I saw it and really liked it, but then when I saw the implementation it does a hard reboot for pandas. This is nice in that the same reboot method solves the problem for both scenarios. Maybe we should call it device_reboot instead? is relay.py the same as what I uploaded (a copy of :ted's repo)? ::: buildfarm/mobile/devices.json @@ +1640,5 @@ > "pduid": ".AA3" > + }, > + "panda-0022": { > + "foopy": "foopy33", > + "relayhost": "panda-relay-06.build.mozilla.org", isn't it panda-relay-006 now? @@ +1641,5 @@ > + }, > + "panda-0022": { > + "foopy": "foopy33", > + "relayhost": "panda-relay-06.build.mozilla.org", > + "relayid": "1:1" I don't like the bank/relay being bundled together- I always think we will need them in the future. @@ +1722,5 @@ > + "panda-0050": { > + "foopy": "foopy34", > + "relayhost": "panda-relay-04.build.mozilla.org", > + "relayid": "2:1" > + }, nit: whitespace ::: sut_tools/sut_lib.py @@ +493,5 @@ > > +def soft_reboot(device, dm, *args, **kwargs): > + """ > + Use the softest/kindest reboot method we think we should use. > + nit: whitespace

Comment on attachment 674988 [details] [diff] [review] do relay-reboot for pandas, adds pandas to devices.json Review of attachment 674988 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- > I think the soft_reboot name is confusing. At first I saw it and really liked it, but then when I saw > the implementation it does a hard reboot for pandas. This is nice in that the same reboot method solves > the problem for both scenarios. Maybe we should call it device_reboot instead? Discussed on IRC, with reboot_device named as such here, theres no good name as it stands, we will likely want to refactor/rename some of these functions to make it all clearer for the next person to need to touch this code though, in the future. > is relay.py the same as what I uploaded (a copy of :ted's repo)? Yes, I skimmed it, and see no glaring problems, so happy to take it as-is. ::: buildfarm/mobile/devices.json @@ +1640,5 @@ > "pduid": ".AA3" > + }, > + "panda-0022": { > + "foopy": "foopy33", > + "relayhost": "panda-relay-06.build.mozilla.org", Yes it is zero-padded one more, fixed up (also *this* relay was wrong in our configs, kmoir pointed it out and I fixed locally) @@ +1641,5 @@ > + }, > + "panda-0022": { > + "foopy": "foopy33", > + "relayhost": "panda-relay-06.build.mozilla.org", > + "relayid": "1:1" Discussed on IRC, we're ok with this for now, but in the future might abstract out to something like "pduType": and have "pduHost" and "pduID" as consistent values, so that we can interchange as needed. ::: sut_tools/config.py @@ +88,5 @@ > proxyPort = calculatePort() > refWidth = 1600 # x > refHeight = 1200 # y > +deviceName = os.path.basename(cwd) > +deviceIP = sys.argv[1] Just to say, many of these sut_* scripts dely on `cwd` for now, and instead of hard-coding IP in the json/csv or needing to calc IP for every panda at least once per script run, I went with calculating deviceName based on the os.path.basename which forces us to use 'panda-*' or 'tegra-*' for all devices. Alternatively we could magically inherit from os.env (like updateSUT does) if this is deemed too much of a pain. ::: sut_tools/sut_lib.py @@ +501,5 @@ > + # Using devicemanager for reboots on pandas doesn't work reliably > + if reboot_relay(device): > + return True > + else: > + log.warn("Error while attempting to reboot %s via Relay Board." % device) Per IRC discussion we'll bubble this warning up to TBPL with log.warn("Automation Error: Unable to reboot %s via Relay Board." % device)

Comment on attachment 674988 [details] [diff] [review] do relay-reboot for pandas, adds pandas to devices.json The the only feedback I have is that that relay 6 should be relay 2 need to be fixed in the devices.json and the relayhost need to be padded with an extra 0 we discussed in IRC yesterday. Also, I have foopy 36 attached with more pandas but they can be added in later patch. Sorry for the delay, I assumed our IRC conversation was feedback :-)

Minor needed fixes.

Comment on attachment 675917 [details] [diff] [review] interdiff of touch-up fixes Review of attachment 675917 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- small and simple!

Deployed 2012-10-29 ~3:00 PT http://hg.mozilla.org/build/tools/rev/a6974cf7947f