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 738364326F; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 14:33:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551E5402AA; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 14:33:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D0D40262 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 14:33:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691513200914; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 09:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 02 Nov 2023 09:33:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t= 1698931978; x=1699018378; bh=IPfA7K/YaS5s+riPvpcVykrBfH9TgELXTqx vPbEnwTc=; b=DGOX/+ldcsGwzJCeipBgslINtEJzQlBzgR81p8E7HZAWIuyjc7w JwmbqKQu3lmBUtkriuUXRrju4hP9jDbw9mxztX06AjWSOkfeRQxXianP/n1UDnLO oyxMn8ubIWvVnC2q7aWED3VY/pMint5hpTxhvFS3sBnMC4ntabM8Q3UWwpwjqGce UI1uh6lSRyIXIR5E+gzLLz4y/vYih5BBoaPlNIi2o9lnywYK5aRNubMVuTzPJz4N DdhuPZGbDzdfWdknJFvedxYQRzRArEA6j8mk5ivBPLuZVmkkeLwpTZWGGUpNJIYB YCKXhi231o/S4aeXjzTVTEn+1LLAuvYI4xA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1698931978; x=1699018378; bh=IPfA7K/YaS5s+riPvpcVykrBfH9TgELXTqx vPbEnwTc=; b=ALsr44Q3tFTVxGw9nK6uWXyjPfcIUm2cCESn3tKF2It0Nncannx J6YTZpBHc9HcilyJRd+HRVi/aiw8fsw9z8G3nwZr/4k8NlYQ/27UBg/sYuAsAg7D 1THHrqn4Wu0JHpYxyDOLpEQ2V+9w1gOpWDnAYjOOc9Xjuj1IRxK+8D0WvPS1GnWe 4uZYmoCbo49bxsSEIquKZ6Ef0w5ApmH9XqRqb9JuRq/mJ5cRLmJ63otBJGipOWjY CEhAM5UFrLHxFDrQo7coPLABCu0LX9L8axgKFoE3phZ1SCLyR6oxs09icBZnK2xt ZZpV7rQ5w6DKtT9fKzhHi+bhWWFl9FqP8oQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedruddtiedgheefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeuleeufeffjeffkeekueehuefgudeukeehveeuleetgeduledu hfdtheetffdtueenucffohhmrghinhepkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 09:32:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Aaron Conole Cc: Michael Santana , ci@dpdk.org, Dumitru Ceara , David Marchand , Ilya Maximets Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] recheck: Add a recheck parser for patchwork comments Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 14:32:54 +0100 Message-ID: <113263709.nniJfEyVGO@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20231027130609.3035396-1-aconole@redhat.com> <1912626.taCxCBeP46@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 02/11/2023 14:03, Aaron Conole: > Thomas Monjalon writes: > > > 01/11/2023 20:16, Aaron Conole: > >> Michael Santana writes: > >> > I like this workflow. The only thing that I do not like is that you > >> > have to check every comment on every patch. That seems like an > >> > expensive operation, but honestly I do not think there is a better way > >> > to accomplish this. So if there is no better way to do it then it's > >> > okay, let's move forward with it > >> > >> There isn't a different way to do it for now, but I hope to switch to > >> using the events API which should mean we only look at the most recent > >> events that come in. > > > > What prevent us to use the events API? > > Ideally we could use it everywhere, but the pw-ci project is used for > other patchwork instances. Events API for comments is a recent change, > and not every patchwork instance is upgraded to support it (for example, > both ozlabs and kernel.org patchwork instances don't have support). > > I do have some detection code, and am planning on hooking that up so > that we can detect whether events API supports comment events based on > the filters offered, but that takes some time to test and validate. > > So it becomes a question of which is more important - having something > working now, or spending time with the detection code. Either way, we > need it for older patchworks that haven't upgraded to the just released > version (some projects are still on 2.2.0). I agree better to work on general availability first. > If you think it is better to do the events path first, I can go with > that but then we severely limit which projects get support for rechecks, > and I've already gotten the feature request for both OVS and OVN - so > we'd either need to support comments polling anyway, or do the massive > work of upgrading ozlabs instance. Events API is an optimization. It can come later.