edgar failed again, https://uberchromegw.corp.google.com/i/chromeos/builders/edgar-paladin/builds/931. But the failure is different. I can't tell whether it's the same cause as its previous round.

Could sheriff have a quick detection whether it's due to a bad CL? If not I will mark this paladin as experimental.

does not look like these are related. kalin@ recently made changes to platform_DebugDaemonCupsAddPrinters, assigning to him to investigate failure in https://uberchromegw.corp.google.com/i/chromeos/builders/edgar-paladin/builds/930,

Kalin, can you please take a look at this failure and see what could be the reason.

Also, Kalin, please ignore  https://uberchromegw.corp.google.com/i/chromeos/builders/edgar-paladin/builds/931 - this is likely to be a separate issue

I just moved the test to bvt-cq. 
There is one small flake left for this test - issue 768622 - and it showed up. It is not specific to device, but the rate it shows is very small.


Test log:
09/29 08:23:38.803 WARNI|              test:0612| The test failed with the following exception
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/local/autotest/common_lib/test.py", line 606, in _exec
    _call_test_function(self.execute, *p_args, **p_dargs)
  File "/usr/local/autotest/common_lib/test.py", line 806, in _call_test_function
    return func(*args, **dargs)
  File "/usr/local/autotest/common_lib/test.py", line 470, in execute
    dargs)
  File "/usr/local/autotest/common_lib/test.py", line 347, in _call_run_once_with_retry
    postprocess_profiled_run, args, dargs)
  File "/usr/local/autotest/common_lib/test.py", line 380, in _call_run_once
    self.run_once(*args, **dargs)
  File "/usr/local/autotest/tests/platform_DebugDaemonCupsAddPrinters/platform_DebugDaemonCupsAddPrinters.py", line 139, in run_once
    self.test_valid_config()
  File "/usr/local/autotest/tests/platform_DebugDaemonCupsAddPrinters/platform_DebugDaemonCupsAddPrinters.py", line 98, in test_valid_config
    'printer %d' % result)
TestFail: valid_config - Could not setup valid printer 3


It 

I do not expect this test failing, as it is unlikely to get such small flake to hit twice in a row.
Still, I'll revert back the test from running on bvt-cq, if somehow it surface again. Lets watch the next build run.

I wonder if JOB_RETRIES = 2 is valid when running the test as part of HWTest [bvt-cq] . 

xixuan@, can we find out if it was re-ran?

Well, I prefered to be on the safe side and reverted it.
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/autotest/+/693150
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/autotest/+/693149

Re #8, Yep it's re-run. See https://viceroy.corp.google.com/chromeos/suite_details?build_id=1898710 for the re-run tests. It has links to the 2 failed tests.

Thanks xixuan@