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 D9EC0A0C46 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 11:23:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF078410ED; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 11:23:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267C7410EC for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 11:23:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E19B5C0004; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 05:23:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 07 Sep 2021 05:23:42 -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=fm2; bh= I1z4JbP54bXFGrhF97MSzNJT2iGwr2eFfRcGtEz9IsY=; b=rNp5m6qSyXprEv6B Sva8hoSKYusjYiKIvexw4MaGdHXMISwfw/bFUuXV+9OzK9XkNzB6zZQgje63UUUD +eKedfyu7ma5w0kSdCRfIJW+DpEwQrHw5+KkuzSnjAHnWHz9U0khQa6x/+D4Mc0J 0DvHDUV82Q83kXNuaFAcH/9xQnrDOo+mre/gWVdqJjqCWwnWS3cw0odRi0Vt221S PDAxyqoqOA5EwJYBkf9f9K8aYnw/SBAckusgIRvVqCglRjvwrzMb0N/fGKhMjWDJ vCpRdXBClHcdPAcdgQDzbCK7z6wMnSpo88SJvPXcrjRlMEFqwwPG7WZpIzFjmKzv Jz/J4g== 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=I1z4JbP54bXFGrhF97MSzNJT2iGwr2eFfRcGtEz9I sY=; b=N3XGUJ0RwuN42OiFcb2jS0zWvP4W+9OBTYL0PiA8AstewtSPflL3D5WUH orS0WAPYr+OcSEw4i9ILNXLpAuzl34parwgL+r12qcQzTCyQGmAI4zRXe10PHdJm +MyI1/6noPKfrUEgdYPx31H6zs4Nn8klxOw/XwB0nOGifufGtKV+feyw8qYNzouM y3kA39vD36xvAOpaPovVRcLDWPDEx69K6HJnWxLRAVyHeYdGlFn1Wd2uiWzCrZZ1 Q8fX5EIEDXCSiGldk8pd22/WvMSTayOj2IilEwU453WnB1xQSeMgVUdKFCtOimdj iGYst4SgB9lkSgmttLUbqfvihbCJg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrudefhedgudeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeethedtieevhfeigeejleegudefjeehkeekteeuveeiuedvveeu tdejveehveetnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 05:23:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Owen Hilyard Cc: Lincoln Lavoie , ci@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 11:23:39 +0200 Message-ID: <2407785.NBKEpSPgsg@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <3224374.3u8ESuPvME@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Community CI Meeting Minutes 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" Thanks for the explanation. OK for extra warnings in DTS patchwork only. 01/09/2021 14:49, Owen Hilyard: > Hello Thomas, >=20 > I was the one who asked for that feature, and I wanted to explain my > reasoning. >=20 > First, it is not possible to run every test in DTS for every patch with a > reasonable amount of hardware. The last time I tried to run everything it > took well over 2 days. As such, the DTS working group decided that it wou= ld > be best to target our testing. I wrote a script that walks the python > module paths and will use the files changed in a patch to determine which > DTS tests could possibly be affected by the change. However, since many of > the tests in DTS require special configuration or particular hardware, the > Intel Lab has a limited set of tests that can be run. I asked that these > warnings be sent out for a test that could be affected by a change, but > which was not run. In part, this is due to a situation that can occur like > with a recent patch I made to the rte flow test suite, where I basically > rewrote a test suite but it was not tested in CI. All of the smoke tests > pass, so it looks fine, but given how DTS is set up, I could have placed > code that wouldn't compile in the test suite and it would still have pass= ed > CI. Since we don't have a good way to prevent that, these notifications a= re > a way for maintainers to quickly check if there were changes in a test > suite that was not tested, and either manually test the patch or pay > special attention to it. >=20 > As for your concern about noise in patchwork, this would be run on DTS > patches only, and would not report onto the main DPDK section. There is > very little going on in the DTS patchworks right now (many patches have no > tests at all) and this provides valuable information for maintainers to > help streamline patch review. The only time this would generate more than= 1 > or 2 warnings would be if a change is made to somewhere very deep in the > DTS framework. When that happens, I personally would prefer that it > generates a lot of output and makes itself noticable, since framework lev= el > changes need to be very carefully reviewed to avoid breaking DPDK CI. >=20 > Owen Hilyard >=20 > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 11:47 AM Thomas Monjalon > wrote: >=20 > > Then it should not be reported in patchwork. > > Please let's not add more noise in patchwork. > > > > > > 26/08/2021 18:27, Lincoln Lavoie: > > > This is specific to patches for DTS, where Intel doesn't have the > > > infrastructure to run every possible test suite that is included in D= TS. > > > So, the warning is a notice to the submitter and the maintainer(s) the > > > patch couldn't be tested. It's not really an issue related to the con= tent > > > of the patch itself (i.e. not about a breaking change or something li= ke > > > that). > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Lincoln > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:05 PM Thomas Monjalon > > > wrote: > > > > > > > 26/08/2021 15:33, Lincoln Lavoie: > > > > > * For DTS CI, should authors be notified of skipped testing (i.e.= CI > > > > infrastructure doesn=E2=80=99t support that test suite)? Should th= is be > > marked as > > > > a warning in patchwork? Agreed it should do both of these actions, > > notify > > > > the author and mark the patch as warning in patchworks. > > > > > > > > Not sure to understand. > > > > If a test is not supported, it is not an issue of the patch, > > > > so why would it be reported in patchwork?