Re: Email based retests for the Loongarch lab

[zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4838 bytes --]

Hi Patrick,

I'm sorry for this serious delay.

I do believe that retesting is meaningful and Loongson lab should 
support it. Meanwhile, the email based retest framework is wonderful and 
it is not too hard to integrate the retest function into the existed 
dpdk-ci framework. Although I am responsible for the Loongson lab, I'm 
not full-time on it. So, I need some time to support the email based 
retest function in Loongson lab. It may take a few weeks.

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 1:54PM, Patrick Robb wrote:
> And I forgot to mention, you can set up part of this using the dpdk-ci 
> project get_reruns.py script. It polls the Rest API for all comment on 
> patch emails events in a given timeframe, and uses regex to write a 
> json file containing any retest requests from that period. We run this 
> periodically (every 15 minutes) at UNH using Jenkins, but I think you 
> could do this with a cron job or another solution.
>
> Just remember to keep bringing the timeframe parameters forward or you 
> will end up consuming a retest request more than once!
>
> https://git.dpdk.org/tools/dpdk-ci/tree/tools/get_reruns.py

Thanks for pointing it out. This script is very useful and it can help 
us more easily support the retest function.

But, I got an empty output when I tried to get the retest requests since 
2023-08-01 as following:

# python3 tools/get_reruns.py -ts 2023-08-01 --contexts 
"iol-compile-amd64-testing,iol-broadcom-Performance,iol-unit-arm64-testing,github-robot"
{
     "retests": {},
     "last_comment_timestamp": "2024-02-28T02:27:49.500680"
}
Or am I using this script wrong?

>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:55 AM Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu 
> <mailto:probb@iol.unh.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Zhoumin,
>
>     I wanted to reach out to you about the possibility of adding the
>     Loongson lab to the group of labs supporting the email based
>     retest framework. Currently, the UNH Community Lab and also the
>     GitHub Robot are supporting patch retest requests from emails, and
>     we would like to extend that to all the publicly reporting CI
>     labs, if possible.
>
>     For context, the original
>     announcement:https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/CAC-YWqiXqBYyzPsc4UD7LbUHKha_Vb3=Aot+dQomuRLojy2hvA@mail.gmail.com/
>
>     Aaron announcing support for the github robot:
>     https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/f7tedfooq6k.fsf@redhat.com/
>
>     And the retest framework definition on the dpdk.org
>     <https://mailgw.loongson.cn/linkserver?dest=http%3A%2F%2Fdpdk.org&tid=_____8Bx3+sGUtdlAT8QAA--.41768S3&rcpt=zhoumin@loongson.cn&ifnotice=1&rindex=0>
>     testing page: https://core.dpdk.org/testing/#requesting-a-patch-retest
>
>     So a format like:
>
>     Recheck-request: iol-compile-amd64-testing,
>     iol-broadcom-Performance, iol-unit-arm64-testing, github-robot
>
>     Is current accepted, and it would be great if we could add
>     Loongson support to the list too. What we are supporting right now
>     is doing retesting on the original DPDK artifact created for a
>     patch when that patch was submitted. But we are also thinking of
>     adding in rebasing off of tip of branch as a v2 feature.
>
I think the stateless retesting is more easily to implement the retest 
function.

I wrote a script to report the CI failures from Loongson lab three times 
a day by fetching the test results from patches.dpdk.org. This script 
can help me find the CI failures in time. So, sometimes I manually 
triggered the DPDK CI test in Loongson lab as a retest for some patches 
or series when I found there is a test failure caused by Loongson lab 
self. In this case, the retest follows the routines of normal test. So, 
it will always do rebasing before applying the patches or series when do 
this kind of retest.

I think it is simpler for Loongson lab to implement the retest function. 
I think it is also feasible to do the retesting on the original DPDK 
artifact created for a patch when that patch was submitted. But, I need 
some times to reconstruct the existed routines.

How do you think of it?

Best Regards,

Min Zhou

>     Does this sound possible for the Loonson lab? I know you are
>     leveraging the dpdk-ci repo for standing up your CI testing, but I
>     don't know specifically whether that lends itself well towards
>     doing retests later, or if that would be a big technical
>     challenge. Let me know!
>
>     If it is possible for the Loongson lab, maybe we can discuss in
>     the March 7 CI Testing meeting?
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Patrick Robb
>
> Technical Service Manager
>
> UNH InterOperability Laboratory
>
> 21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824
>
> www.iol.unh.edu 
> <https://mailgw.loongson.cn/linkserver?dest=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iol.unh.edu%2F&tid=_____8Bx3+sGUtdlAT8QAA--.41768S3&rcpt=zhoumin@loongson.cn&ifnotice=1&rindex=1>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10029 bytes --]