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 016A943CE4; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:59:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC0CA40633; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:59:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-oo1-f47.google.com (mail-oo1-f47.google.com [209.85.161.47]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA5E40289 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:59:50 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-oo1-f47.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5a470320194so2053167eaf.3 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:59:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1710777589; x=1711382389; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=OElNLQyzdttKqs8Oc5hlYoqBff/9WXpnay7Hg2iyK50=; b=HfCfqjg2wc1TQ04IfMZ4X4R4yNlzVhDha0p5g2WUpS9nRrGHvRKTrz6+mPgPvZh6Fb 7bJ70oh7HmOAGUC1XepoRx3COXYYeNLzXoNpuMk5/zClY8oP9InJP9MIyQlGEtJnAPrS qnVcyzwGS0PiYH4yK/Mf6p/A9KZRXAF54ezzc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710777589; x=1711382389; h=content-transfer-encoding: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=OElNLQyzdttKqs8Oc5hlYoqBff/9WXpnay7Hg2iyK50=; b=oRC8FCycNS279slTjPORY9E6q++vrxZ2aPHopDqx1VSt66qLhQFTbYvXDNNuyrIfsB QT3bNQymTqUznSVwEzGrbAY/YiuhLrowbgEb1vCRskPX9RAYR75VZ/pWZJD4tx73lNt+ Bj8T06cn7TTqXUgu/oMbmc7bZ/CcfMeOF4fD/c+aOxVQkQRr5xShbNgkVs7xOJyXIGFZ lx0N2/YA+VuhAE5ShSOY5/Uw4MZE3Gb2YaNC+1CT+zElmX8/PTEwZBUhqgRH71CPAP4g vGuj3Xh1xH9FlYmBxOafzxvH0tFkr3pAHIR/sICPEfEYjem+d6iVSaTji1f1+7+u6pr3 Hb6Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUo/imrAMwKsw3yn17B2AAP9qWlQeMEWvPM55hrJABbclqtvn5jSmhFFA4jtOVUm4fYOFQ932bJhwygNw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyK/EDUehTExQk1rHRRYzJBnBxLjFWBU8MXU9Cuwikfkpe6LbjM 0a/tEgc5ueJFdmW+O7fl9qN964PuY4ig1jFZYG4p37Px5EP87Q2lwl2pvLwjFa7nj0YkDbJ60T2 nZG/Mq9nBhI8FG7BwaP6m1gyvSEYyXvMkkyRpaA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH7SKvSoU7lFYBYMl8VbMFJCCryCBu4iFSBQEr04x29kAC+3Af1ig9GLRgsymiobzhfgVdym2dMqJDUA14vOQw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6820:98d:b0:5a4:8782:7f8b with SMTP id cg13-20020a056820098d00b005a487827f8bmr69330oob.1.1710777589525; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:59:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2640cd5b-ea3d-cd74-d5c0-eb776e880b13@loongson.cn> In-Reply-To: From: Patrick Robb Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:59:38 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Email based retest request process: proposal for new pull/re-apply feature To: Adam Hassick Cc: Aaron Conole , zhoumin , ci@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 12:06=E2=80=AFPM Adam Hassick = wrote: > > > I'm not opposed to having the contexts be a key-value pair argument > like the others, however that does break backwards compatibility with > our existing syntax. If we don't care very much about backwards > compatibility, then we could make this change. > > Instead of having a boolean and a string parameter for whether to > rebase and the branch to rebase on, we could have a single argument > specifying a branch. Then, labs rebase on the given branch and then > rerun all tests if the "rebase=3D" argument is present. This > would look like: > > Recheck-request: rebase=3Dmain, iol-sample-apps-testing, > iol-unit-amd64-testing, iol-broadcom-Performance I agree with this approach because it preserves backward compatibility, while still providing us with all the functionality we need. We will also be able to accept key value arguments in the future if further feature requests come in which require it. > I don't think the context should be required if the request includes > the rebase argument, because we do not want to mix valid and invalid > test results as Aaron said. > This would be a valid format if contexts are optional: > > Recheck-request: rebase=3Dmain Okay, I agree that contexts should not be considered by labs when we use rebase - but of course we will still store the contexts (if they are submitted) alongside the key value args. In the future there may be an application for this. Zhoumin, does this sound acceptable, or do you think there are any flaws? If it works, we will implement the updates and try to upstream this week. Thanks!