On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 1:12 PM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wrote:
Why not something like:
Recheck-request: [attribute-list],[test-list]...
For example, then we can do:
Recheck-request: rebase=[identifier],....
where identifier is a branch specifier (or the word 'latest')?
I hadn't thought about the option of allowing branch specifiers. Agree that allowing a human correction process for the pw_maintainer_cli.py script choosing the wrong branch sounds helpful.
My original idea was offering 2 options (test original artifact, or re-apply on latest). Do we want to support for checking out to a specific commit and re-applying there? I figured that would not be worth it (too much of a niche case), but your comments are making me reconsider.
I agree with you that allowing developers to correct the target branch is useful. But, the developer should just provide the name of branch instead of commit ID, which is more reasonable. Of course, the rebasing option is more important. So, I consider we can allow developers to submit a request as following format:
Recheck-request: rebase=True|branch=main|contexts=iol-compile-amd64-testing, iol-broadcom-Performance,...
We can use "|" as the separator, for example. `rebase` and
`branch` can be optional and we can use the default values if the
developer doesn't provide them. The default is not rebasing for
`rebase` option. The default is the branch chosen by
pw_maintainer_cli.py script for `branch` option. The `contexts`
option is required.
Re-report with a modified test label may be better. That can tell people more information about the CI testings, such as that the retest indeed happened.so re-report with a modified test label? That is good in that it shows the behavior more clearly. But, it also means we will not overwrite any fails. So the fail will still be there, and the patchwork patch page will grow a huge table. Maybe this is fine.
Just spit-balling on syntax.
That said, I agree - if a rebase has been requested, all tests need to
be rerun. Maybe we should consider that the test labels should be added
with a run number or something? Or we could also include that the run
is a rerun. That way for labs that don't currently support the recheck
request framework, we can easily tell that they weren't re-tried.
Also raises the point of getting more coverage for the retest framework at other labs. I will email Min Zhou regarding how he uses the dpdk-ci project for the loongson build jobs and see how well that can integrate with the get_reruns.py script.