From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Lincoln Lavoie <lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>
Cc: ci@dpdk.org, James Hendergart <j.hendergart@f5.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] CI reliability
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 23:10:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3163283.oOSAsHYAT8@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOE1vsPh7A4e14XaXmHbMJXL2D6moeKUSB7adD+RpO0xcwPF+w@mail.gmail.com>
26/05/2020 22:27, Lincoln Lavoie:
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 5:50 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think we have a CI reliability issue in general.
> > Perhaps we lack some alert mechanism warning test platform maintainers
> > when too many tests are failing.
> >
> > Recent example: the community lab compilation test is failing on
> > Fedora 31 for at least 2 weeks, and I don't see any action to fix it:
> > https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/11040/
> >
> > Because of such recurring errors, the whole CI becomes irrelevant.
>
> This has been fixed as of yesterday. The failure was caused by a commit to
> the SPDK repos in how they pull in their dependencies, which was done in a
> way that is not compatible with docker. The team created a work around so
> that case is fixed, but there is always a risk where other commits for
> those type of items could cause a failure in the containers.
Thanks for fixing
> I asked Brandon to change the scripts that run the testing in the
> containers to try and catch failures from docker separately, so they can be
> flagged as infrastructure, compared to failures of the build.
Yes good idea.
When compiling external projects, we can see some errors which
are not due to the DPDK patch.
I guess we validate any upgrade of the external projects
before making them live?
> I'm also very surprised, this was not raised during the CI meeting, or by
> anyone else. I'm wondering if this is caused by the actual error logs
> being a little abstracted from the emails, i.e. they are a link and a zip
> file away for the actual email text, so maybe folks are not really looking
> into the output as closely as they should be. Is this something we can
> make better by including more detail in the email text, so issues are
> caught more quickly?
I think the table in the report is already quite expressive.
As I proposed above, I think we need a better monitoring.
If the same test is failing on many DPDK patches, it should raise an alarm.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-26 21:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-24 9:50 Thomas Monjalon
2020-05-26 20:27 ` Lincoln Lavoie
2020-05-26 21:10 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2021-06-02 7:27 Thomas Monjalon
2021-06-02 12:55 ` Lincoln Lavoie
2021-06-02 13:34 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3163283.oOSAsHYAT8@thomas \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=ci@dpdk.org \
--cc=j.hendergart@f5.com \
--cc=lylavoie@iol.unh.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).