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 6B61843CEC; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 02:36:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8244029F; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 02:36:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.loongson.cn (mail.loongson.cn [114.242.206.163]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CB040298; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 02:36:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from loongson.cn (unknown [10.20.42.74]) by gateway (Coremail) with SMTP id _____8DxWPCYPfplgggbAA--.64357S3; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:36:25 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.20.42.74] (unknown [10.20.42.74]) by localhost.localdomain (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf8Cxbs2VPfplkvRdAA--.48170S3; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:36:23 +0800 (CST) Subject: Re: Email based retest request process: proposal for new pull/re-apply feature To: Patrick Robb Cc: Adam Hassick , Aaron Conole , ci@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org References: <2640cd5b-ea3d-cd74-d5c0-eb776e880b13@loongson.cn> <0e26774c-db4d-61d3-88d9-f505be59c083@loongson.cn> From: zhoumin Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 01:35:29 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux loongarch64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf8Cxbs2VPfplkvRdAA--.48170S3 X-CM-SenderInfo: 52kr3ztlq6z05rqj20fqof0/1tbiAQACAWX5TOgGnAABsh X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uk129KBj93XoW7CryfGFWkGry3Zr1xXF1kJFc_yoW8AF4xpF Z5t3W3tr4DGa9xGFnFqw18Jay0krsxArnrXr1xKrWkCFn8Xr18Kr4rKayj9rWDZr1Sg34Y vF4Sq39ruFyDZ3cCm3ZEXasCq-sJn29KB7ZKAUJUUUU8529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7KY7ZEXa sCq-sGcSsGvfJ3Ic02F40EFcxC0VAKzVAqx4xG6I80ebIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy29KBjDU 0xBIdaVrnRJUUUv0b4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2 IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r106r15M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48v e4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI 0_Jr0_Gr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW8JVWxJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_ Gr0_Gr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l57IF6xkI12xvs2x26I8E6xACxx1l5I 8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40Ex7xfMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AK xVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41lc7I2V7IY0VAS07AlzV AYIcxG8wCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwCFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwC20s026c02F40E 14v26r1j6r18MI8I3I0E7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_JF0_Jw1lIx kGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAF wI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6r1j6r1xMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r 4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_GrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU8czVUUU UUU== 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 Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 5:30PM, Patrick Robb wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 4:37 AM zhoumin wrote: >> >> One more thing I want to confirm is whether we should apply the patch >> onto the branch commit which existed at the time when that patch was >> submitted or onto the latest tip of branch if users request doing >> rebase. Users probably request a recheck with `rebase` when the CI lab >> chose a wrong branch onto which apply the patch. I worry we may >> encounter conflicts when apply the patch onto the latest commit of the >> target branch if that branch is just updated before the request. >> >> > That's a good edge case to think about... but I also think if the > patch no longer applies cleanly on tip of intended branch, then we > would be correct to report an apply failure there. And then the > submitter should refactor their patch so it applies, and submit again. Yes, it is more reasonable for submitter. > So I think the process is like > > A) If retest is requested without rebase key, then retest "original" > dpdk artifact (either by re-using the existing tarball (unh lab) or > tracking the commit from submit time and re-applying onto dpdk at that > commit (loongson)). > > B) If rebase key is included, apply to tip of the indicated branch. > If, because the branch has changed, the patch no longer applies, then > we can report an apply failure. Then, submitter has to refactor their > patch and resubmit. Thanks for making the applying process more clear. > In either case, report the new results with an updated test result in > the email (i.e. report "_Testing PASS RETEST #1" instead of "_Testing > PASS" in the email body). Yes, I agree with this approach and reporting a new title for the retest result is necessary.