Continuous Integration (CI) is a development model. Developers make changes which are continuously integrated into the main development tree. Testing of that tree then allows those developers to know if their changes have introduced new bugs, regressions of old bugs or exposed side-effects in other systems or components. CI depends on the testing done at each integration to work. Tests need to be:
Relevant to the developer - providing meaningful results with enough information that the developer can identify the actual problem, not a symptom.
Reproducible - results which the developer can reproduce locally make for a quicker and more reliable fix.
Timely - the turnaround time for the test of each integration step needs to be within a window where the developer is still working on that system or can quickly switch back to it. Other developers are basing their own development and testing on the development tree, a failure in one integration step needs to be identified before more development is integrated into the same tree.
These principles underpin the idea of “closing the CI loop”. The loop starts with the developer change being integrated into the tree. A trigger then causes a build which is submitted for testing and validation. Obtaining the results is only one step, the results need to get back to the developer and provide the developer with enough information to close the loop by making a further change to fix problems identified by the testing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration for background on CI workflow and best practices and Closing the CI loop for an example of how LAVA can work within a CI loop.
Summary of CI best practices¶
There are a number of other resources available for background on CI, these are reproduced here to show how automation and LAVA relate to CI:
Use version control
Automate the build
Make the build self-testing
LAVA provides extensions here to in-build testing by testing the build on real hardware separately from the in-build tests on the build hardware. The build itself is separate from the LAVA test.
Everyone commits to baseline regularly (e.g. daily)
Every commit to baseline is built (and tested)
Keep the build (and test) fast
Test in a clone of the production environment
This is where automation can have complications as a true production environment closes the access methods used by automation
Everyone can see the results
Although LAVA does automated deployment, it does so with the requirement that the deployment is still accessible to the automation to determine that the deployment is successful. This can have implications for how the deployment to a production-clone test instance is done. For example, within the LAVA software team, deployments to the staging instance are not done with LAVA but using standard OS build and upgrade tools. This is in addition to using these same build and upgrade tools within virtualized containers to test fresh installs and clean upgrades.
LAVA and CI¶
LAVA is focused on kernel and system validation as part of a CI loop and provides a way to test on a wide variety of different hardware to aid portability and develop multi-platform systems.
CI requires that the testing is useful to the developer and this has important implications for LAVA. Tests submitted to LAVA need to follow a basic rule to be able to produce meaningful and relevant output.
Test one element at a time - the basic scientific method. If the test changes the kernel, the deployment method and the OS at the same time, there is no way to produce relevant or useful output when that test fails. Any one of those elements may have contributed to the failure.
Test a modified kernel build using a deployment method which is known to work for previous builds and using an OS and a test definition which is known to work for previous builds.
Test a modified deployment method using a known kernel, OS and test definition.
Describe the purpose of each test in the job name, comments and metadata.
Automation & CI¶
LAVA is an automated architecture and automation itself can have implications for how relevant the results will be to the developers.
Automation might be required to use methods which do not match user methods.
Automation can involve hardware or software modifications which do not match the user experience.
Automation requires that devices are always recovered from a test failure, i.e. often termed “unbrickable”.
Automation requires a level of administrative setup and integration of new devices far beyond what would be needed for setting up a single device for human testing.
How does this affect testing with LAVA?¶
A server or development board can be tested in a similar way to user testing because the interface available on the board is likely to be command-line only. e.g. using SSH. However, this test still requires that the device is configured to recover from failed deployments by enabling remote power control and ensuring that the boot process can be interrupted reliably.
A device with a graphical user interface (GUI) is much harder to test in a way that the user would test the device. Video capture is possible but needs extra hardware and only compares static images. Some GUI systems support automation by recording clicks/taps and movement. However, this does not mean that LAVA is the best choice of test system for these systems.
LAVA is aimed at kernel and system development and testing across a wide variety of hardware platforms. By the time the test has got to the level of automating a GUI, there have been multiple layers of abstraction between the hardware, the kernel, the core system and the components being tested. Following the core principle of testing one element at a time, this means that such tests quickly become platform-independent. This reduces the usefulness of the LAVA systems, moving the test into scope for other CI systems which consider all devices as equivalent slaves. The overhead of LAVA can become an unnecessary burden.
CI needs a timely response - it takes time for a LAVA device to be re-deployed with a system which has already been tested. In order to test a component of the system which is independent of the hardware, kernel or core system a lot of time has been consumed before the “test” itself actually begins. LAVA can support testing pre-deployed systems but this severely restricts the usefulness of such devices for actual kernel or hardware testing.
Automation may need to rely on insecure access. Production builds (hardware and software) take steps to prevent systems being released with known login identities or keys, backdoors and other security holes. Automation relies on at least one of these access methods being exposed, typically a way to access the device as the root or admin user. User identities for login must be declared in the submission and be the same across multiple devices of the same type. These access methods must also be exposed consistently and without requiring any manual intervention or confirmation. For example, mobile devices must be deployed with systems which enable debug access which all production builds will need to block.
Automation relies on remote power control - battery powered devices can be a significant problem in this area. On the one hand, testing can be expected to involve tests of battery performance, low power conditions and recharge support. However, testing will also involve broken builds and failed deployments where the only recourse is to hard reset the device by killing power. With a battery in the loop, this becomes very complex, sometimes involving complex electrical bodges to the hardware to allow the battery to be switched out of the circuit. These changes can themselves change the performance of the battery control circuitry. For example, some devices fail to maintain charge in the battery when held in particular states artificially, so the battery gradually discharges despite being connected to mains power. Devices which have no battery can still be a challenge as some are able to draw power over the serial circuitry or USB attachments, again interfering with the ability of the automation to recover the device from being “bricked”, i.e. unresponsive to the control methods used by the automation and requiring manual admin intervention.
Automation relies on unique identification - all devices in an automation lab must be uniquely identifiable at all times, in all modes and all active power states. Too many components and devices within labs fail to allow for the problems of scale. Details like serial numbers, MAC addresses, IP addresses and bootloader timeouts must be configurable and persistent once configured.
LAVA is not a complete CI solution - even including the hardware support available from some LAVA instances, there are a lot more tools required outside of LAVA before a CI loop will actually work. The triggers from your development workflow to the build farm (which is not LAVA), the submission to LAVA from that build farm are completely separate and outside the scope of this documentation. LAVA can help with the extraction of the results into information for the developers but LAVA output is generic and most teams will benefit from some “frontend” which extracts the data from LAVA and generates relevant output for particular development teams.
LAVA is not a build farm - equally LAVA is not useful as a validator of production builds which are about to be shrink-wrapped and released to the public. It is not possible to deploy a “secure” system and then test that the system has even been deployed successfully as any properly secure system will lock out the method used by the automation. Any failures in the deployment will go completely unnoticed until the product is handed by the user. To test such systems requires some form of user-like robotic or human testing, involving unlocking the device or interface, configuring services and accounts, starting and closing applications via a Graphical User Interface and evaluating whether the device produces the correct graphical output.