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 49697430D2; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 18:36:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594874021D; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 18:36:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A8B40041 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 18:36:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1692722203; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=UKc9KnghB+zeTj+yS6db2obyNgbBC9NPVutEbA4gm/0=; b=Yzy7C1Nolaz2apcCa/m6KafNelZ3HCEOAq24iyba37MdzbV+WSXnMI9t6RY39VRZ0aaEoH /CwgIYJNGQOooSIDwxZRI4YFIf5e2k6AWzSXNsr05bTKT/Mvqn9PtTUu6yazKXE1XxsNLp riNEiUCCXhptA6msJdJwdTXtzW02ZKU= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-635-9dD5wsZUMVqFxtLF2FjrbQ-1; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 12:36:40 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 9dD5wsZUMVqFxtLF2FjrbQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 238728D40A4; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 16:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTPC1VM0NT (unknown [10.22.9.232]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E37CE492C18; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 16:36:39 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Adam Hassick Cc: ci@dpdk.org, Patrick Robb Subject: Re: Retesting Framework Announcement Draft References: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 12:36:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Adam Hassick's message of "Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:37:08 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.9 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com 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 Adam Hassick writes: > Hi All, > > Below is our final draft of our announcement to the DPDK developers infor= ming them of our new recheck > request system. We would like your feedback and suggestions before we sen= d it out. > > Thanks, > Adam > > -- > > Hello DPDK Developers, > > Currently, various testing labs perform CI testing on new patch series se= nt to dev@dpdk.org and report their > results to https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/. On each series = on the patch list, the results > appear in the test category contexts for IOL (community lab), GitHub, Loo= ngSon, and Intel. We should probably drop Intel from this, as they haven't submitted a result in 2 weeks. > If a reported failure on a series seems suspect to the patch submitter or= maintainer, then there is an interest in > requesting a retest on the series for the failing label(s) in order to ve= rify the failure is not spurious or false > positive. This retest demonstrates to the submitter or maintainer that th= e failure can be reliably reproduced. > Unfortunately, at present, the best way to accomplish this is to reach ou= t to lab maintainers via email or slack. > This is not ideal for developers in need of quick test results. > > Going forward, CI testing labs will be implementing the option to request= retest for their respective test labels > on patchwork via emails sent to the dev mailing list. This feature is rea= dy today for labels reported by the > UNH-IOL Community Lab, and will soon also be an option for the Github Rob= ot at least. ACK > In order to request a retest on your patch series, send an email reply to= one of your series=E2=80=99s patch or cover > letter emails with email content of the format used below:=20 > > Recheck-request: > > The valid delimiter is a comma optionally followed by a space or a newlin= e character: =E2=80=9C,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9C, =E2=80=9C =E2=80=9C,\n=E2=80=9D Even if you support the new-line character, let's not advertise that feature. The original stuff we agreed on was just for a single line. Some regex parsers won't support multi-line. > Valid examples: > > Recheck-request: iol-compile-amd64-testing, iol-broadcom-Performance, iol= -compile-arm64-testing, > > Recheck-request: iol-compile-amd64-testing,iol-broadcom-Performance, iol-= compile-arm64-testing, > > Recheck-request: iol-compile-amd64-testing, iol-broadcom-Performance, iol= -compile-arm64-testing > > Invalid examples: > > Recheck-request: iol-compile-amd64-testing, iol-broadcom-Performance > > Recheck-request: iol-compile-amd64-testing iol-broadcom-Performance,iol-c= ompile-arm64-testing, > > Some important notes: > > 1 At present, there is only support for retesting the series as it existe= d when the lab received it. As in, if the > lab applied the series on DPDK mainline when the head was commit X, and = a retest is requested, then > retests will be run using those same sources applied on top of commit X.= This is important to note because > this means retest requests will not provide a solution to your patch bei= ng submitted when the tree is in a > =E2=80=9Cbad state.=E2=80=9D > > 2 For any series submitted earlier than August 2023, you must submit a re= test request in reply to a patch > email, NOT in reply to a cover letter email. > > 3 The initial policy is to accept no more than one retest request per pat= ch per lab. > > 4 Your patch should begin to retest within 30 minutes of your request, bu= t wait time is subject to the testing > queue just like any other series. As a result, retesting will be slower = during peak submission time. > > Improvements we are considering for v2 of the email retesting framework: > > 1 Add in an option to re-apply on the latest commit on DPDK mainline. So,= if your patch was originally applied > on commit X, and you want to retest, but have it be applied to commit Y = (latest), you could specify that. > Under these circumstances, we would have to do a retest of all labels, s= ince it would be inappropriate to mix > reports for results from different commits. We could say that a workaround to this is that they can always resubmit the patch series to the mailing list in this case. > 2 Add a policy for vetting retest requesters - so maybe only maintainers,= or maybe only maintainers and the > submitter, or another set of people.=20 > > 3 Add in an option to request a retest for next-* branches and/or LTS bra= nches.