[PATCH 0/1] pending results parsing for DPDK patchwork

[PATCH 0/1] pending results parsing for DPDK patchwork

[Patrick Robb]

Going forward, the Community Lab aims to support an additional test
status in our reporting: PENDING. This will allow us to provide better
feedback to submitters. It will be more clear when testing is complete
vs still in progress. And it will also indicate more clearly when an
infra failure has resulted in a missing test report (because the label
will be stuck on PENDING until the test result is successfully
reported).

This has been discussed at the DPDK CI testing meetings and I think the testing community
approves.

Patrick Robb (1):
  tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

 tools/update-pw.sh | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

-- 
2.40.0

[PATCH 1/1] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Patrick Robb]

Signed-off-by: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
---
 tools/update-pw.sh | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/tools/update-pw.sh b/tools/update-pw.sh
index 07067dd..b0f0baa 100755
--- a/tools/update-pw.sh
+++ b/tools/update-pw.sh
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ case $status in
 	'SUCCESS') pwstatus='success' ;;
 	'WARNING') pwstatus='warning' ;;
 	'FAILURE') pwstatus='fail' ;;
+	'PENDING') pwstatus='pending' ;;
 esac
 printf 'id = %s\nlabel = %s\nstatus = %s/%s %s\nurl = %s\n' \
 	"$pwid" "$label" "$status" "$pwstatus" "$desc" "$url"
-- 
2.40.0

Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Patrick Robb]

+Aaron Conole
+Ali Alnubani

Sorry, I mistakenly didn't add you guys to CC

RE: [PATCH 1/1] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Ali Alnubani]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 10:22 PM
> To: ci@dpdk.org
> Cc: probb@iol.unh.edu; ahassick@iol.unh.edu
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails
> 
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
> ---
>  tools/update-pw.sh | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/update-pw.sh b/tools/update-pw.sh
> index 07067dd..b0f0baa 100755
> --- a/tools/update-pw.sh
> +++ b/tools/update-pw.sh
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ case $status in
>  	'SUCCESS') pwstatus='success' ;;
>  	'WARNING') pwstatus='warning' ;;
>  	'FAILURE') pwstatus='fail' ;;
> +	'PENDING') pwstatus='pending' ;;
>  esac
>  printf 'id = %s\nlabel = %s\nstatus = %s/%s %s\nurl = %s\n' \
>  	"$pwid" "$label" "$status" "$pwstatus" "$desc" "$url"
> --
> 2.40.0

Acked-by: Ali Alnubani <alialnu@nvidia.com>

Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Thomas Monjalon]

17/05/2024 21:22, Patrick Robb:
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>

Please could you explain what it is doing?
Having a workflow understanding would be nice.

> --- a/tools/update-pw.sh
> +++ b/tools/update-pw.sh
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ case $status in
>  	'SUCCESS') pwstatus='success' ;;
>  	'WARNING') pwstatus='warning' ;;
>  	'FAILURE') pwstatus='fail' ;;
> +	'PENDING') pwstatus='pending' ;;

Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Patrick Robb]

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 3:03 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> 17/05/2024 21:22, Patrick Robb:
> > Signed-off-by: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
>
> Please could you explain what it is doing?
> Having a workflow understanding would be nice.

Yes good idea.

For context, pending is already a supported check state in patchwork
server: https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/overview/#checks

1. DPDK patch is submitted. Patch is acquired by UNH Lab.
2. UNH Lab triggers some testrun pipelines in our CI system (jenkins).
The first action the pipeline takes is to create in our database a
test result record for each testrun, setting the status to PENDING. It
is important to note that one patchwork context, Like
"iol-compile-amd64-testing," may consist of many individual testruns,
each for different distros, hardware, environment etc.
3. When each testrun completes, it will send a report to Patchwork
with the new result (pass or fail). When it does this it will update
the context's results table, changing the environment's result from
pending to pass/fail. So, when the first report comes in for, say,
context "iol-compile-amd64-testing," you would see 1 pass/fail, 12
pending, or similar. Then, as subsequent testruns complete, and report
their results, the updated table comes with the new report. The
overall context result (the _Testing {PASS/FAIL/PENDING}_ at the top
of the test report email) is determined in the manner you might
expect, i.e. if there is at least one testrun fail result, overall
context is fail, else if there is at least one pending result, overall
context is pending, else if all results are passing, overall result is
passing. As an example, when testing is nearly complete, the top of
the report email may look like this:

_Testing PENDING_

Branch: tags/v22.11

a409653a123bf105970a25c594711a3cdc44d139 --> testing pass

Test environment and result as below:

+------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|            Environment             |       dpdk_meson_compile      |
+====================================+====================+
| Ubuntu 20.04 ARM SVE                          | PASS               |
+------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Debian 12 with MUSDK                           | PENDING        |
+------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Fedora 37 (ARM)                                     | PASS               |
+------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Ubuntu 20.04 (ARM)                                | PASS               |
+------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Fedora 38 (ARM)                                     | PASS               |
+------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Fedora 39 (ARM)                                     | PENDING        |
+------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Debian 12 (arm)                                       | PASS               |
+------------------------------------+--------------------+
| CentOS Stream 9 (ARM)                         | PASS               |
+------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Debian 11 (Buster) (ARM)                        | PASS               |
+------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Ubuntu 20.04 ARM GCC Cross Compile | PASS               |
+------------------------------------+--------------------+


4. Eventually, all testruns are complete for a patchwork context, and
the table switches from pending to pass or fail.

This does not slow the delivery of results, nor does it increase the
number of test report emails sent. We still send only 1 email per
testrun.

This way it is plainly visible to the user when all testing is
complete, and it also flags for the submitter and for CI people if
some infra failure prevents a testrun from completing, or from a
result being properly emailed, etc. The idea is to provide more
complete status updates and check against infra fails better, but
without any adverse effects in user experience or load on the email
server.

>
> > --- a/tools/update-pw.sh
> > +++ b/tools/update-pw.sh
> > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ case $status in
> >       'SUCCESS') pwstatus='success' ;;
> >       'WARNING') pwstatus='warning' ;;
> >       'FAILURE') pwstatus='fail' ;;
> > +     'PENDING') pwstatus='pending' ;;
>
>
>

Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Thomas Monjalon]

20/05/2024 23:36, Patrick Robb:
> 2. UNH Lab triggers some testrun pipelines in our CI system (jenkins).
> The first action the pipeline takes is to create in our database a
> test result record for each testrun, setting the status to PENDING. It
> is important to note that one patchwork context, Like
> "iol-compile-amd64-testing," may consist of many individual testruns,
> each for different distros, hardware, environment etc.
> 3. When each testrun completes, it will send a report to Patchwork
> with the new result (pass or fail). When it does this it will update
> the context's results table, changing the environment's result from
> pending to pass/fail. So, when the first report comes in for, say,
> context "iol-compile-amd64-testing," you would see 1 pass/fail, 12
> pending, or similar. Then, as subsequent testruns complete, and report
> their results, the updated table comes with the new report. The
> overall context result (the _Testing {PASS/FAIL/PENDING}_ at the top
> of the test report email) is determined in the manner you might
> expect, i.e. if there is at least one testrun fail result, overall
> context is fail, else if there is at least one pending result, overall
> context is pending, else if all results are passing, overall result is
> passing. As an example, when testing is nearly complete, the top of
> the report email may look like this:
> 
> _Testing PENDING_
> 
> Branch: tags/v22.11
> 
> a409653a123bf105970a25c594711a3cdc44d139 --> testing pass
> 
> Test environment and result as below:
> 
> +------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
> |            Environment             |       dpdk_meson_compile      |
> +====================================+====================+
> | Ubuntu 20.04 ARM SVE                          | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Debian 12 with MUSDK                           | PENDING        |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Fedora 37 (ARM)                                     | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Ubuntu 20.04 (ARM)                                | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Fedora 38 (ARM)                                     | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Fedora 39 (ARM)                                     | PENDING        |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Debian 12 (arm)                                       | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | CentOS Stream 9 (ARM)                         | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Debian 11 (Buster) (ARM)                        | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Ubuntu 20.04 ARM GCC Cross Compile | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+

It is quite strange to receive a new email each time a line of the table is updated.

> 4. Eventually, all testruns are complete for a patchwork context, and
> the table switches from pending to pass or fail.
> 
> This does not slow the delivery of results, nor does it increase the
> number of test report emails sent. We still send only 1 email per
> testrun.

I had not realised that so many emails are sent.
I thought it was 1 patchwork context == 1 email.

> This way it is plainly visible to the user when all testing is
> complete, and it also flags for the submitter and for CI people if
> some infra failure prevents a testrun from completing, or from a
> result being properly emailed, etc. The idea is to provide more
> complete status updates and check against infra fails better, but
> without any adverse effects in user experience or load on the email
> server.

I understand it gives a new information: test is pending.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Patrick Robb]

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:08 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> 20/05/2024 23:36, Patrick Robb:
> > 2. UNH Lab triggers some testrun pipelines in our CI system (jenkins).
> > The first action the pipeline takes is to create in our database a
> > test result record for each testrun, setting the status to PENDING. It
> > is important to note that one patchwork context, Like
> > "iol-compile-amd64-testing," may consist of many individual testruns,
> > each for different distros, hardware, environment etc.
> > 3. When each testrun completes, it will send a report to Patchwork
> > with the new result (pass or fail). When it does this it will update
> > the context's results table, changing the environment's result from
> > pending to pass/fail. So, when the first report comes in for, say,
> > context "iol-compile-amd64-testing," you would see 1 pass/fail, 12
> > pending, or similar. Then, as subsequent testruns complete, and report
> > their results, the updated table comes with the new report. The
> > overall context result (the _Testing {PASS/FAIL/PENDING}_ at the top
> > of the test report email) is determined in the manner you might
> > expect, i.e. if there is at least one testrun fail result, overall
> > context is fail, else if there is at least one pending result, overall
> > context is pending, else if all results are passing, overall result is
> > passing. As an example, when testing is nearly complete, the top of
> > the report email may look like this:
> >
> > _Testing PENDING_
> >
> > Branch: tags/v22.11
> >
> > a409653a123bf105970a25c594711a3cdc44d139 --> testing pass
> >
> > Test environment and result as below:
> >
> > +------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
> > |            Environment             |       dpdk_meson_compile      |
> > +====================================+====================+
> > | Ubuntu 20.04 ARM SVE                          | PASS               |
> > +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> > | Debian 12 with MUSDK                           | PENDING        |
> > +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> > | Fedora 37 (ARM)                                     | PASS               |
> > +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> > | Ubuntu 20.04 (ARM)                                | PASS               |
> > +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> > | Fedora 38 (ARM)                                     | PASS               |
> > +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> > | Fedora 39 (ARM)                                     | PENDING        |
> > +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> > | Debian 12 (arm)                                       | PASS               |
> > +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> > | CentOS Stream 9 (ARM)                         | PASS               |
> > +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> > | Debian 11 (Buster) (ARM)                        | PASS               |
> > +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> > | Ubuntu 20.04 ARM GCC Cross Compile | PASS               |
> > +------------------------------------+--------------------+
>
> It is quite strange to receive a new email each time a line of the table is updated.
>
> > 4. Eventually, all testruns are complete for a patchwork context, and
> > the table switches from pending to pass or fail.
> >
> > This does not slow the delivery of results, nor does it increase the
> > number of test report emails sent. We still send only 1 email per
> > testrun.
>
> I had not realised that so many emails are sent.
> I thought it was 1 patchwork context == 1 email.

This is how it worked until last year, but our test results delivery
was slow in some cases. So, we implemented "tail reporting" i.e. the
ability for an environment to report its own test run when it finishes
testing, as opposed to relying on a testrun aggregator which runs
later. If a test run fails, we want to share that information as soon
as we can, not block it on other testing.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Aaron Conole]

Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> writes:

> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 3:03 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>>
>> 17/05/2024 21:22, Patrick Robb:
>> > Signed-off-by: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
>>
>> Please could you explain what it is doing?
>> Having a workflow understanding would be nice.

+1.  It would usually be used in the commit message to show the
rationale for the change.  Here's a suggestion for an even shorter
distillation from your message below:

 Today, the community CI infrastructure only uses post-result reporting,
 such as "SUCCESS", "FAILED", and "WARNING".  These results get reported
 only after a test finishes.  This creates some confusion about whether a
 test might have been started for the series in question.  It isn't easy
 to tell at-a-glance which tests are currently running for a given patch
 or series.

 This patch aims to introduce support for a "PENDING" state in the CI
 infrastructure.  This allows labs to indicate which tests have started
 and are awaiting results.  That means test writers should now send a
 "PENDING" status for tests as they start, and then update with a
 post-test result after.  With this change, understanding which tests ran
 at-a-glance is something we can achieve.

 This change should have no affect on the actual tests being run.

Maybe a v2 with something like this as the commit message?  WDYT?

> Yes good idea.
>
> For context, pending is already a supported check state in patchwork
> server: https://patchwork.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/overview/#checks
>
> 1. DPDK patch is submitted. Patch is acquired by UNH Lab.
> 2. UNH Lab triggers some testrun pipelines in our CI system (jenkins).
> The first action the pipeline takes is to create in our database a
> test result record for each testrun, setting the status to PENDING. It
> is important to note that one patchwork context, Like
> "iol-compile-amd64-testing," may consist of many individual testruns,
> each for different distros, hardware, environment etc.
> 3. When each testrun completes, it will send a report to Patchwork
> with the new result (pass or fail). When it does this it will update
> the context's results table, changing the environment's result from
> pending to pass/fail. So, when the first report comes in for, say,
> context "iol-compile-amd64-testing," you would see 1 pass/fail, 12
> pending, or similar. Then, as subsequent testruns complete, and report
> their results, the updated table comes with the new report. The
> overall context result (the _Testing {PASS/FAIL/PENDING}_ at the top
> of the test report email) is determined in the manner you might
> expect, i.e. if there is at least one testrun fail result, overall
> context is fail, else if there is at least one pending result, overall
> context is pending, else if all results are passing, overall result is
> passing. As an example, when testing is nearly complete, the top of
> the report email may look like this:
>
> _Testing PENDING_
>
> Branch: tags/v22.11
>
> a409653a123bf105970a25c594711a3cdc44d139 --> testing pass
>
> Test environment and result as below:
>
> +------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
> |            Environment             |       dpdk_meson_compile      |
> +====================================+====================+
> | Ubuntu 20.04 ARM SVE                          | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Debian 12 with MUSDK                           | PENDING        |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Fedora 37 (ARM)                                     | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Ubuntu 20.04 (ARM)                                | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Fedora 38 (ARM)                                     | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Fedora 39 (ARM)                                     | PENDING        |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Debian 12 (arm)                                       | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | CentOS Stream 9 (ARM)                         | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Debian 11 (Buster) (ARM)                        | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | Ubuntu 20.04 ARM GCC Cross Compile | PASS               |
> +------------------------------------+--------------------+
>
>
> 4. Eventually, all testruns are complete for a patchwork context, and
> the table switches from pending to pass or fail.
>
> This does not slow the delivery of results, nor does it increase the
> number of test report emails sent. We still send only 1 email per
> testrun.
>
> This way it is plainly visible to the user when all testing is
> complete, and it also flags for the submitter and for CI people if
> some infra failure prevents a testrun from completing, or from a
> result being properly emailed, etc. The idea is to provide more
> complete status updates and check against infra fails better, but
> without any adverse effects in user experience or load on the email
> server.
>
>>
>> > --- a/tools/update-pw.sh
>> > +++ b/tools/update-pw.sh
>> > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ case $status in
>> >       'SUCCESS') pwstatus='success' ;;
>> >       'WARNING') pwstatus='warning' ;;
>> >       'FAILURE') pwstatus='fail' ;;
>> > +     'PENDING') pwstatus='pending' ;;
>>
>>
>>

[PATCH v2] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Patrick Robb]

Today, the community CI infrastructure only uses post-result reporting,
such as "SUCCESS", "FAILED", and "WARNING".  These results get reported
only after a test finishes.  This creates some confusion about whether a
test might have been started for the series in question.  It isn't easy
to tell at-a-glance which tests are currently running for a given patch
or series.

This patch aims to introduce support for a "PENDING" state in the CI
infrastructure.  This allows labs to indicate which tests have started
and are awaiting results.  That means test writers should now send a
"PENDING" status for tests as they start, and then update with a
post-test result after.  With this change, understanding which tests ran
at-a-glance is something we can achieve.

This change should have no affect on the actual tests being run.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
---
 tools/update-pw.sh | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/tools/update-pw.sh b/tools/update-pw.sh
index 07067dd..b0f0baa 100755
--- a/tools/update-pw.sh
+++ b/tools/update-pw.sh
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ case $status in
 	'SUCCESS') pwstatus='success' ;;
 	'WARNING') pwstatus='warning' ;;
 	'FAILURE') pwstatus='fail' ;;
+	'PENDING') pwstatus='pending' ;;
 esac
 printf 'id = %s\nlabel = %s\nstatus = %s/%s %s\nurl = %s\n' \
 	"$pwid" "$label" "$status" "$pwstatus" "$desc" "$url"
-- 
2.40.0

RE: [PATCH v2] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Ali Alnubani]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 1:00 AM
> To: ci@dpdk.org
> Cc: aconole@redhat.com; ahassick@iol.unh.edu; NBU-Contact-Thomas
> Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <thomas@monjalon.net>; Ali Alnubani
> <alialnu@nvidia.com>; Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
> Subject: [PATCH v2] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails
> 
> Today, the community CI infrastructure only uses post-result reporting,
> such as "SUCCESS", "FAILED", and "WARNING".  These results get reported
> only after a test finishes.  This creates some confusion about whether a
> test might have been started for the series in question.  It isn't easy
> to tell at-a-glance which tests are currently running for a given patch
> or series.
> 
> This patch aims to introduce support for a "PENDING" state in the CI
> infrastructure.  This allows labs to indicate which tests have started
> and are awaiting results.  That means test writers should now send a
> "PENDING" status for tests as they start, and then update with a
> post-test result after.  With this change, understanding which tests ran
> at-a-glance is something we can achieve.
> 
> This change should have no affect on the actual tests being run.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
> ---

Acked-by: Ali Alnubani <alialnu@nvidia.com>

Thanks,
Ali

Re: [PATCH v2] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Aaron Conole]

Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> writes:

> Today, the community CI infrastructure only uses post-result reporting,
> such as "SUCCESS", "FAILED", and "WARNING".  These results get reported
> only after a test finishes.  This creates some confusion about whether a
> test might have been started for the series in question.  It isn't easy
> to tell at-a-glance which tests are currently running for a given patch
> or series.
>
> This patch aims to introduce support for a "PENDING" state in the CI
> infrastructure.  This allows labs to indicate which tests have started
> and are awaiting results.  That means test writers should now send a
> "PENDING" status for tests as they start, and then update with a
> post-test result after.  With this change, understanding which tests ran
> at-a-glance is something we can achieve.
>
> This change should have no affect on the actual tests being run.
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
> ---

Thanks Patrick and Ali - applied.

Re: [PATCH v2] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Patrick Robb]

Thanks Aaron for merging and Ali for updating on the PW side.

UNH is going to start reporting with the PENDING status today for just
the ABI patchwork context. If all looks good, we will enable for the
entire set of contexts we are responsible for tomorrow.

Re: [PATCH v2] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Adam Hassick]

Ali,

I've been monitoring Patchwork today after rolling out the feature on
just the ABI context, and I've noticed that checks with "pending"
status do not appear in the table or in the Patchwork API. I only see
the check appear in the table/API once the final "success" check is
sent.

Here's a thread that I've been tracking for example:
http://inbox.dpdk.org/test-report/667c6064.050a0220.f0848.4472SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com/T/#u
It looks to me that the "Test-Status" tag is set correctly.

Is it possible there are errors when adding the checks on the Patchwork end?

Thanks,
Adam


On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 3:34 PM Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks Aaron for merging and Ali for updating on the PW side.
>
> UNH is going to start reporting with the PENDING status today for just
> the ABI patchwork context. If all looks good, we will enable for the
> entire set of contexts we are responsible for tomorrow.

RE: [PATCH v2] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Ali Alnubani]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 10:32 PM
> To: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
> Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>; ci@dpdk.org; NBU-Contact-Thomas
> Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <thomas@monjalon.net>; Ali Alnubani
> <alialnu@nvidia.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails
> 
> Ali,
> 
> I've been monitoring Patchwork today after rolling out the feature on
> just the ABI context, and I've noticed that checks with "pending"
> status do not appear in the table or in the Patchwork API. I only see
> the check appear in the table/API once the final "success" check is
> sent.
> 
> Here's a thread that I've been tracking for example:
> http://inbox.dpdk.org/test-
> report/667c6064.050a0220.f0848.4472SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.c
> om/T/#u
> It looks to me that the "Test-Status" tag is set correctly.
> 
> Is it possible there are errors when adding the checks on the Patchwork end?
> 

Hi Adam,

I just realized that I pulled the new change in the wrong path. Can you please try now?

Thanks,
Ali

Re: [PATCH v2] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails

[Patrick Robb]

https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20240627075755.66386-1-sthotton@marvell.com/

Thanks Ali. I see pending for this patch for ABI testing. We will look
in a couple of hours and it should by then have updated to pass/fail.
Assuming that we don't notice any weird behavior, we will merge our PR
tomorrow morning for the remaining PW contexts we report (currently we
still only have ABI pending enabled).

One thing we didn't think about when we set this up was the "S/W/F"
counter that can be seen from
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/. That does not include
pending. I guess that will be something to discuss at our next CI
meeting!

Thanks.

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ali Alnubani <alialnu@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 10:32 PM
> > To: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
> > Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>; ci@dpdk.org; NBU-Contact-Thomas
> > Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <thomas@monjalon.net>; Ali Alnubani
> > <alialnu@nvidia.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools: check for pending test status when parsing emails
> >
> > Ali,
> >
> > I've been monitoring Patchwork today after rolling out the feature on
> > just the ABI context, and I've noticed that checks with "pending"
> > status do not appear in the table or in the Patchwork API. I only see
> > the check appear in the table/API once the final "success" check is
> > sent.
> >
> > Here's a thread that I've been tracking for example:
> > http://inbox.dpdk.org/test-
> > report/667c6064.050a0220.f0848.4472SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.c
> > om/T/#u
> > It looks to me that the "Test-Status" tag is set correctly.
> >
> > Is it possible there are errors when adding the checks on the Patchwork end?
> >
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> I just realized that I pulled the new change in the wrong path. Can you please try now?
>
> Thanks,
> Ali