From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ci-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE7D42C55
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Thu,  8 Jun 2023 03:14:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A44410D3;
	Thu,  8 Jun 2023 03:14:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-oi1-f177.google.com (mail-oi1-f177.google.com
 [209.85.167.177])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7384640042
 for <ci@dpdk.org>; Thu,  8 Jun 2023 03:14:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-oi1-f177.google.com with SMTP id
 5614622812f47-39c77cf32deso383477b6e.0
 for <ci@dpdk.org>; Wed, 07 Jun 2023 18:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1686186851; x=1688778851;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
 bh=+IWw4frmGh7J9gy6Y7AyNuxDNggNxn+hf/0Z3T5Bffk=;
 b=fAMfx6ijDStfU1k7HUHPzLVvsm5R1/IGNlUwn2tVSvZtWScJl4Dzh4MFfPP2FsbFmQ
 cX6hc14O22QpTXo9cvq2HMjY/7PHDsNnySqMOAUwZAu6gLyAd7CM0/iZ+7804MWCwuOc
 k7Omdchg5zgJ/uoNdL7OsVu+N4DzNsxeGXBVA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686186851; x=1688778851;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id
 :reply-to;
 bh=+IWw4frmGh7J9gy6Y7AyNuxDNggNxn+hf/0Z3T5Bffk=;
 b=Q9Kxt+BtxRhGL6UiEN9vWRM/oj4q29+kokQIxQi9XJZ+YVLqvEOflX2737wsyfvl9j
 QvvpVXoiZRdMhPSQq1xXftg+jPcv1pg8Ah/gFO5WZSaXlPHt3ooSeCAj0QupS/IUa7Fq
 DkvofdHGQtMC/WIh11jMtHcgv0Jsq/BRql0oeCFLWrMWRXhK4/LhwF9SllrG4xZUdz1Y
 ogOTOTYtOLY1soiAd/ozDBkpA51w7djvT6bzgIeU3sdTyohjmL12TNzu9u/U23GX17g1
 rqmdR/XGK4zFgHRYDcg0ZPVtqIBDxpMpxZKUmPdKSj/OpTbl090lKcyfhKBj26cgcVo4
 Gjgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzbKpqGVEneNRcDbUh5KQFqSCVfBmWtbX75oPdGYsj+IMCzHt6h
 Us1N68oAmgZiVymFfv1W0AHtQfg5chJlWRSE5uDHGg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7ARqMDZaEYvjyKd/6ypXjh/lGiCCiiq3roOwc+u2KNTFDUOVtEdi7EuojNlxw67nbRHjYJdMCPRg9rmcnCsgM=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:bc43:0:b0:39c:6024:430a with SMTP id
 m64-20020acabc43000000b0039c6024430amr376916oif.8.1686186851553; Wed, 07 Jun
 2023 18:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJvnSUBc79Y+yA1gQRsifjH7BPYQKGxNaXr43x-HmFnPrQcOag@mail.gmail.com>
 <3fa6546b-8152-e317-30f0-30d5118b9fc4@amd.com>
 <CAJvnSUAbhwRqSw5jHRuP4Dwpa5eC5wCKMP+kFfCJE5NqePGVCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f7tbkhr4enp.fsf@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <f7tbkhr4enp.fsf@redhat.com>
From: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 21:14:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJvnSUA95NVd+o13dP5BAxy2r0-RztVGA3murWthMYXpSTW0oQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Email Based Re-Testing Framework
To: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>, ci@dpdk.org, "Tu,
 Lijuan" <lijuan.tu@intel.com>, 
 zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn>, Michael Santana <maicolgabriel@hotmail.com>, 
 Lincoln Lavoie <lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004fe98b05fd93f87c"
X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK CI discussions <ci.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/ci>,
 <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/ci/>
List-Post: <mailto:ci@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/ci>,
 <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org

--0000000000004fe98b05fd93f87c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>
> What would be the purpose of [RETEST UNH-IOL]?
>
Agreed, this is redundant, provided we will be using the labels/contexts
used on patchwork. That seems to be the idea behind Aaron's proposed format
and I think we should move to use his format since it previously reached
some consensus, and appears to be easy to parse.


> We need to specify the patchwork identifier of the patch.
>
> We could make a script similar to the checkpatch run on dpdk.org:
> https://git.dpdk.org/tools/dpdk-ci/tree/tests/checkpatch.sh
> The easiest way to run it is to make the script as the receiver of the
> mail.
> If the lab can receive the mails from the mailing list,
> then just need to filter the retest requests for its own lab.

Yes, I think this is reasonable. I don't think this process is likely to
change much, and if we can provide a script to live on the dpdk-ci repo
which checks for retest requests, we can reasonably expect the labs to
separately set up an environment to handle running that script and
triggering their re-tests. Thanks Thomas.



On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 8:53=E2=80=AFAM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wr=
ote:

> Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> writes:
>
> >  Also it can be useful to run daily sub-tree testing by request, if
> possible.
> >
> > That wouldn't be too difficult. I'll make a ticket for this. Although,
> for testing on the daily sub-trees, since that's
> > UNH-IOL specific, that wouldn't necessarily have to be done via an emai=
l
> based testing request framework. We
> > could also just add a button to our dashboard which triggers a sub-tree
> ci run. That would help keep narrow
> > the scope of what the email based retesting framework is for. But, both
> email or a dashboard button would
> > both work.
>
> We had discussed this long ago - including agreeing on a format, IIRC.
>
> See the thread starting here:
>   https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/ci/2021-May/001189.html
>
> The idea was to have a line like:
>
> Recheck-request: <test names>
>
> where <test names> was the tests in the check labels.  In fact, what
> started the discussion was a patch for the pw-ci scripts that
> implemented part of it.
>
> I don't see how to make your proposal as easily parsed.
>
> WDYT?  Can you re-read that thread and come up with comments?
>
> > On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 1:53=E2=80=AFPM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.c=
om>
> wrote:
> >
> >  On 6/6/2023 5:56 PM, Patrick Robb wrote:
> >  > Hello all,
> >  >
> >  > I'd like to revive the conversation about a request from the communi=
ty
> >  > for an email based re-testing framework. The idea is that using one
> >  > standardized format, dpdk developers could email the test-report
> mailing
> >  > list, requesting a rerun on their patch series for "X" set of tests =
at
> >  > "Y" lab. I think that since patchwork testing labels (ie.
> >  > iol-broadcom-Performance, github-robot: build, loongarch-compilation=
)
> >  > are already visible on patch pages on patchwork, those labels are th=
e
> >  > most reasonable ones to expect developers to use when requesting a
> >  > re-test. We probably wouldn't want to get any more general than that=
,
> >  > like, say, rerunning all CI testing for a specific patch series at a
> >  > specific lab, since it would result in a significant amount of
> "wasted"
> >  > testing capacity.
> >  >
> >  > The standard email format those of us at the Community Lab are
> thinking
> >  > of is like below. Developers would request retests by emailing the
> >  > test-report mailing list with email bodies like:
> >  >
> >  > [RETEST UNH-IOL]
> >  > iol-abi-testing
> >  > iol-broadcom-Performance
> >  >
> >  > [RETEST Intel]
> >  > intel-Functional
> >  >
> >  > [RETEST Loongson]
> >  > loongarch-compilation
> >  >
> >  > [RETEST GHA]
> >  > github-robot: build
> >  >
> >  > From there, it would be up to the various labs to poll the test-repo=
rt
> >  > mailing list archive (or use a similar method) to check for such
> >  > requests, and trigger a CI testing rerun based on the labels provide=
d
> in
> >  > the re-test email. If there is interest from other labs, UNH might
> also
> >  > be able to host the entire set of re-test requests, allowing other
> labs
> >  > to poll a curated list hosted by UNH. One simple approach would be f=
or
> >  > labs to download all emails sent to test-report and parse with regex
> to
> >  > determine the re-test list for their specific lab. But, if anyone ha=
s
> >  > any better ideas for aggregating the emails to be parsed, suggestion=
s
> >  > are welcome! If this approach sounds reasonable to everyone, we coul=
d
> >  > determine a timeline by which labs would implement the functionality
> >  > needed to trigger re-tests. Or, we can just add re-testing for vario=
us
> >  > labs if/when they add this functionality - whatever is better. Happy
> to
> >  > discuss at the CI meeting on Thursday.
> >  >
> >
> >  +1 to re-testing framework.
> >
> >  Also it can be useful to run daily sub-tree testing by request, if
> possible.
>
>

--=20

Patrick Robb

Technical Service Manager

UNH InterOperability Laboratory

21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824

www.iol.unh.edu

--0000000000004fe98b05fd93f87c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">What wou=
ld be the purpose of [RETEST UNH-IOL]?<br></blockquote><div>Agreed, this is=
 redundant, provided we will be using the labels/contexts used on patchwork=
. That seems to be the idea behind Aaron&#39;s proposed format and I think =
we should move to use his format since it previously reached some consensus=
, and appears to be easy to parse.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">We need to specify the patchwork identifie=
r of the patch.<br><br>We could make a script similar to the checkpatch run=
 on=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://dpdk.org/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">=
dpdk.org</a>:<br><a href=3D"https://git.dpdk.org/tools/dpdk-ci/tree/tests/c=
heckpatch.sh" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://git.dpdk.org/too=
ls/dpdk-ci/tree/tests/checkpatch.sh</a><br>The easiest way to run it is to =
make the script as the receiver of the mail.<br>If the lab can receive the =
mails from the mailing list,<br>then just need to filter the retest request=
s for its own lab.</blockquote><div>Yes, I think this is reasonable. I don&=
#39;t think this process is likely to change much, and if we can provide a =
script to live on the dpdk-ci repo which checks for retest requests, we can=
 reasonably expect the labs to separately=C2=A0set up an environment to han=
dle running that script and triggering their re-tests. Thanks Thomas.<br><b=
r><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"=
gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 8:53=E2=80=AFAM Aaron Conole &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:aconole@redhat.com">aconole@redhat.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Patrick Robb &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:probb@iol.unh.edu" target=3D"_blank">probb@iol.unh.edu</a>&gt; w=
rites:<br>
<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 Also it can be useful to run daily sub-tree testing by request, =
if possible.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; That wouldn&#39;t be too difficult. I&#39;ll make a ticket for this. A=
lthough, for testing on the daily sub-trees, since that&#39;s<br>
&gt; UNH-IOL specific, that wouldn&#39;t necessarily have to be done via an=
 email based testing request framework. We<br>
&gt; could also just add a button to our dashboard which triggers a sub-tre=
e ci run. That would help keep narrow<br>
&gt; the scope of what the email based retesting framework is for. But, bot=
h email or a dashboard button would<br>
&gt; both work. <br>
<br>
We had discussed this long ago - including agreeing on a format, IIRC.<br>
<br>
See the thread starting here:<br>
=C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/ci/2021-May/001189.html" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/ci/202=
1-May/001189.html</a><br>
<br>
The idea was to have a line like:<br>
<br>
Recheck-request: &lt;test names&gt;<br>
<br>
where &lt;test names&gt; was the tests in the check labels.=C2=A0 In fact, =
what<br>
started the discussion was a patch for the pw-ci scripts that<br>
implemented part of it.<br>
<br>
I don&#39;t see how to make your proposal as easily parsed.<br>
<br>
WDYT?=C2=A0 Can you re-read that thread and come up with comments?<br>
<br>
&gt; On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 1:53=E2=80=AFPM Ferruh Yigit &lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:ferruh.yigit@amd.com" target=3D"_blank">ferruh.yigit@amd.com</a>&gt; wr=
ote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 On 6/6/2023 5:56 PM, Patrick Robb wrote:<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; Hello all,<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; <br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; I&#39;d like to revive the conversation about a request fro=
m the community<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; for an email based re-testing framework. The idea is that u=
sing one<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; standardized format, dpdk developers could email the test-r=
eport mailing<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; list, requesting a rerun on their patch series for &quot;X&=
quot; set of tests at<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; &quot;Y&quot; lab. I think that since patchwork testing lab=
els (ie.<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; iol-broadcom-Performance, github-robot: build, loongarch-co=
mpilation)<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; are already visible on patch pages on patchwork, those labe=
ls are the<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; most reasonable ones to expect developers to use when reque=
sting a<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; re-test. We probably wouldn&#39;t want to get any more gene=
ral than that,<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; like, say, rerunning all CI testing for a specific patch se=
ries at a<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; specific lab, since it would result in a significant amount=
 of &quot;wasted&quot;<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; testing capacity.<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; <br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; The standard email format those of us at the Community Lab =
are thinking<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; of is like below. Developers would request retests by email=
ing the<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; test-report mailing list with email bodies like:<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; <br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; [RETEST UNH-IOL]<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; iol-abi-testing<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; iol-broadcom-Performance<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; <br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; [RETEST Intel]<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; intel-Functional<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; <br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; [RETEST Loongson]<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; loongarch-compilation<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; <br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; [RETEST GHA]<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; github-robot: build<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; <br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; From there, it would be up to the various labs to poll the =
test-report<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; mailing list archive (or use a similar method) to check for=
 such<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; requests, and trigger a CI testing rerun based on the label=
s provided in<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; the re-test email. If there is interest from other labs, UN=
H might also<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; be able to host the entire set of re-test requests, allowin=
g other labs<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; to poll a curated list hosted by UNH. One simple approach w=
ould be for<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; labs to download all emails sent to test-report and parse w=
ith regex to<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; determine the re-test list for their specific lab. But, if =
anyone has<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; any better ideas for aggregating the emails to be parsed, s=
uggestions<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; are welcome! If this approach sounds reasonable to everyone=
, we could<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; determine a timeline by which labs would implement the func=
tionality<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; needed to trigger re-tests. Or, we can just add re-testing =
for various<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; labs if/when they add this functionality - whatever is bett=
er. Happy to<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; discuss at the CI meeting on Thursday.<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 &gt; <br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 +1 to re-testing framework.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 Also it can be useful to run daily sub-tree testing by request, =
if possible.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div><span class=3D"gmail_si=
gnature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr"><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margi=
n-bottom:0pt"><font color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial"><span style=3D"font-si=
ze:13.3333px;white-space:pre-wrap">Patrick Robb</span></font></p><p style=
=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><=
span style=3D"font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-=
color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Technical S=
ervice Manager</span></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);line-h=
eight:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:10pt;f=
ont-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-ali=
gn:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">UNH InterOperability Laboratory</span></p=
><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt=
;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:r=
gb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:=
pre-wrap">21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824</span></p><p dir=3D"lt=
r" style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-botto=
m:0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(17,85,204)=
;background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"=
><a href=3D"http://www.iol.unh.edu/" style=3D"color:rgb(17,85,204)" target=
=3D"_blank">www.iol.unh.edu</a></span></p><p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color:rgb=
(34,34,34);line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><br></p><p dir=
=3D"ltr" style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin=
-bottom:0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(51,5=
1,51);background-color:transparent;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-=
wrap"><img src=3D"https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/7sTY8VswXadak_YT0J13osh=
5ockNVRX2BuYaRsKoTTpkpilBokA0WlocYHLB4q7XUgXNHka6-ns47S8R_am0sOt7MYQQ1ILQ3S=
-P5aezsrjp3-IsJMmMrErHWmTARNgZhpAx06n2" width=3D"150" height=3D"37" style=
=3D"border: none;"></span></p></div></div>

--0000000000004fe98b05fd93f87c--