From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED9BA034F for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:01:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1771A4068B; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:01:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32F54067E for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:01:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D861AFD; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:00:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:00:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= lI++lAqpS3RE3Z6gw3PFMZkHQa9BFyR76d8RCHB7KZ0=; b=fSY/D8vIXJj4IXxz RFK1u6jpGvjqMIaQSv8J2Mrz8Vg3bmTAL29r8eUV/Eh/8puZyWrUmxtbB3QhTgII 7qdlpnk6Xb+GI7o32AvkoHLuDI2oj05PSR/9DJqRMMjnepLfohMnjtj6GWVF4wLe 5hgBUgcsVmRvDNOCvpB6rMav2rvM22fXwXHb8kgMc+hriTAHNEmlFbol7rUOFieT HzGN+4WQIOc/XkYZfcwI185TMhfevDWWVFzUTtqcwmYN0UFg3jBzlOC10ZdMhwMU AqE2K2Wio/GOzVTQwjV7ksTdkbMw9Zq1PHDwvS+5dT4tNg7A8iyON3AGopsc1Yyk Vyey0w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=lI++lAqpS3RE3Z6gw3PFMZkHQa9BFyR76d8RCHB7K Z0=; b=RnV0MmzixNLnjtUARgQoFchY87Jooz0CcITjEMhG7zhi2qXn0OdV7OrbY VKBCeJSHSLY8OCNxwKjVIhmLV767bp/xi3oJndTBbE4NrFcfx9SOjJvFKWDwsNUk McK0+1Z7ggeaqPq/KPqepKo5zrMm4JBBrDE7w9s2Lk3tv+cLbwg2XHiim1+FbwTv iavDHctGoATIKv9/UvAHHhO4YN57Qi4+OjDdbaj351QcrELgpqs1sjrUSoOAE3o8 QcLcSuEkWzRZ8cIw2USdGFw6HPgCS+mjdGAPDsiN3VrWWkKhuZG6IkhXuIy1mIAf 3C5xhjJ0n6jj54J3KwctoAn+Al4qA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfedtjedgleeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdvffejueetleefieeludduuefgteejleevfeekjeefieegheet ffdvkeefgedunecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhn rdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:00:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Tu, Lijuan" Cc: Aaron Conole , Ali Alnubani , "ci@dpdk.org" Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 18:00:55 +0200 Message-ID: <1916263.pevYBLBqtN@thomas> In-Reply-To: <5eae7b7cad9c4449874ebbe5dabcfa34@intel.com> References: <5eae7b7cad9c4449874ebbe5dabcfa34@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [DISCUSS] report format for adding checks to other projects X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" 26/03/2021 02:14, Tu, Lijuan: > From: Aaron Conole > > "Tu, Lijuan" writes: > > > From: Ali Alnubani > > > > From: Ali Alnubani > > >> > > There was a question today about submitting test reports for > > >> > > patches that belong to other projects. Specifically, the DTS > > >> > > project (found at > > >> > > http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dts/list/) > > >> > > > > >> > > I believe there is no need to do anything different (because > > >> > > patch ID should be unique across the patchwork instance, so the > > >> > > test report will go to the correct patch), but wanted to confirm this is > > correct. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Same report format should work fine, but we have to make the > > >> > Patchwork user CI a maintainer for these projects. > > >> > We'll do that soon and update. > > >> > > > >> > > >> The CI user is now a maintainer for the DTS project. > > >> Please let me know if you see any issues with creating checks via email > > reports. > > > > > > We sent reports to dts project, and it works, e.g. > > > http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dts/patch/1615946979-23566-1-git-send- > > > email-hailinx.xu@intel.com/ but we met another question, which mail > > > address should dts reports send to ? > > > If reports sent to < test-report@dpdk.org>, it will be mixed with dpdk > > > reports, e.g. > > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-March/183128.html > > > And an tag [dpdk-test-report] will be added automatically, it's very confused > > for users. > > > Therefore, Can we have a separated mail address for dts reports? > > > > Is it really a problem to intermingle? I think most of the 'users' of this list will > > access via the patchwork front-end, yes? > > when you are reading the failure details, and find the reports subject is > "[dpdk-test-report] [dts-test-report] |FAILURE| pw(89305) " or "[dpdk-test-report]|FAILURE| pw(89305) " > Here the tag "[dpdk-test-report]" is added by mail system automatically, and [dts-test-report] is added by dts ci system. > It is very strange for dts developer to see "[dpdk-test-report]" in the mail subject. > As it is not a key issue, the priority can be very low, I just want maintainer aware of that. The new list dts-test-report has been created: http://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dts-test-report You can start using it. Please let me know if patchwork automatically parses it.