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 1F83043CF8; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:37:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F354440298; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:37:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.loongson.cn (mail.loongson.cn [114.242.206.163]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E0A40289; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:37:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from loongson.cn (unknown [10.20.42.74]) by gateway (Coremail) with SMTP id _____8AxafC2TvllJ7EaAA--.64448S3; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:37:11 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.20.42.74] (unknown [10.20.42.74]) by localhost.localdomain (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf8CxbROyTvll4kRdAA--.48732S3; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:37:08 +0800 (CST) Subject: Re: Email based retest request process: proposal for new pull/re-apply feature To: Patrick Robb , Adam Hassick Cc: Aaron Conole , ci@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org References: <2640cd5b-ea3d-cd74-d5c0-eb776e880b13@loongson.cn> From: zhoumin Message-ID: <0e26774c-db4d-61d3-88d9-f505be59c083@loongson.cn> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:36:14 +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: AQAAf8CxbROyTvll4kRdAA--.48732S3 X-CM-SenderInfo: 52kr3ztlq6z05rqj20fqof0/1tbiAQABAWX5TOgAEQABsp X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uk129KBj93XoW7Cw1xJF17ZFy5CF1UGF1rGrX_yoW8KFy3pF WrJa1Skr4ktFZ3Jrn29w1rJa4Fyr4Syr9xJ3yftrWDCrn8WFyUtr4ftF4jkFyDur1S9F12 9rsFqa4xAa4DZ3cCm3ZEXasCq-sJn29KB7ZKAUJUUUU5529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7KY7ZEXa sCq-sGcSsGvfJ3Ic02F40EFcxC0VAKzVAqx4xG6I80ebIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy29KBjDU 0xBIdaVrnRJUUUv2b4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2 IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48v e4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_JFI_Gr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI 0_Jr0_Gr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AK xVW8Jr0_Cr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l57IF6xkI12xvs2x26I8E6xACxx 1l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40Ex7xfMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1Y6r17McIj6I8E87Iv 67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41lc7I2V7IY0VAS07 AlzVAYIcxG8wCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwCFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwC20s026c02 F40E14v26r1j6r18MI8I3I0E7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_JF0_Jw 1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7Cj xVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6r1j6r1xMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r 1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_GrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU1QV y3UUUUU== 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 Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 3:59PM, Patrick Robb wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 12:06 PM Adam Hassick wrote: >> >> I'm not opposed to having the contexts be a key-value pair argument >> like the others, however that does break backwards compatibility with >> our existing syntax. If we don't care very much about backwards >> compatibility, then we could make this change. >> >> Instead of having a boolean and a string parameter for whether to >> rebase and the branch to rebase on, we could have a single argument >> specifying a branch. Then, labs rebase on the given branch and then >> rerun all tests if the "rebase=" argument is present. This >> would look like: >> >> Recheck-request: rebase=main, iol-sample-apps-testing, >> iol-unit-amd64-testing, iol-broadcom-Performance > I agree with this approach because it preserves backward > compatibility, while still providing us with all the functionality we > need. We will also be able to accept key value arguments in the future > if further feature requests come in which require it. > >> I don't think the context should be required if the request includes >> the rebase argument, because we do not want to mix valid and invalid >> test results as Aaron said. >> This would be a valid format if contexts are optional: >> >> Recheck-request: rebase=main > Okay, I agree that contexts should not be considered by labs when we > use rebase - but of course we will still store the contexts (if they > are submitted) alongside the key value args. In the future there may > be an application for this. > > Zhoumin, does this sound acceptable, or do you think there are any > flaws? If it works, we will implement the updates and try to upstream > this week. Thanks! Thanks for your hard work. I also agree with this approach. The meaning of the key value `rebase=main` is sufficient, and loongson lab can support it. 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.