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 1ABB2469D1; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 06:16:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC44540697; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 06:16:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.loongson.cn (mail.loongson.cn [114.242.206.163]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4D040156 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 06:16:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from loongson.cn (unknown [10.20.42.143]) by gateway (Coremail) with SMTP id _____8AxDGsu7FBoJiQYAQ--.55736S3; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:16:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.20.42.143] (unknown [10.20.42.143]) by front1 (Coremail) with SMTP id qMiowMBx3MQo7FBo6uYdAQ--.23995S3; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:16:42 +0800 (CST) Subject: Re: Email based retests for the Loongarch lab To: Patrick Robb Cc: ci@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole , David Marchand , "Brandes, Shai" References: <24d143d3-4739-457d-bf15-c6224ca21bb0@loongson.cn> From: zhoumin Message-ID: <123907a4-bfa2-180d-7abd-fe4c498c5381@loongson.cn> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:15:12 +0800 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A63A7DE0A44A22925E3C2DE7" Content-Language: en-US X-CM-TRANSID: qMiowMBx3MQo7FBo6uYdAQ--.23995S3 X-CM-SenderInfo: 52kr3ztlq6z05rqj20fqof0/1tbiAgEQAWhQpWwEtQABsT X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uk129KBj93XoW7uw4UKF4DtrWDJw1DJry3ZFc_yoW8Kr13pa yrC3ZI9rZ5Jr18Aw1UGw4xXryrZr95C3y3Ja1UGFyUAwn8JF1qqr4Ivan0g3y7urs3W3W7 Zr12k392vFn8JFXCm3ZEXasCq-sJn29KB7ZKAUJUUUU8529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7KY7ZEXa sCq-sGcSsGvfJ3UbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy29KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUkEb4IE77IF4wAF F20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r 1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAF wI0_JFI_Gr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67 AKxVWxJr0_GcWl84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26F4UJVW0owAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x0 82IY62kv0487Mc804VCY07AIYIkI8VC2zVCFFI0UMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18Mc Ij6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41l7480 Y4vEI4kI2Ix0rVAqx4xJMxk0xIA0c2IEe2xFo4CEbIxvr21l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I 8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUGVWUWwC20s026x8GjcxK67AK xVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r126r1DMIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcV AFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8I cIk0rVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r 1j6r4UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07UGD73UUUUU= 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A63A7DE0A44A22925E3C2DE7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Patrick Robb, Thanks for you efforts on retest framework! The get_reruns.py script is really helpful. We will support the rebase argument this week. On 2025/6/12 5:05AM, Patrick Robb wrote: > Hi Min Zhou, > > Thanks for the response and for getting some retest support online! I > agree the next reasonable steps are to continue to align out > processes, in part so that the lab behavior is predictable according > to what is documented on dpdk.org > . > > > On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 8:50 PM zhoumin > wrote: > > Yes, we don't support the rebase argument. Meanwhile, for the sake > of simplicity, the rechecking behavior at Loongson lab is a little > different from the default behavior. we recheck the patches on the > latest HEAD of the branch selected by pw_maintainers_cli.py > script. This behavior is same to that of the first testing for the > commit at Loongson lab. It's ok to be consistent with the defualt > behavior. Maybe we can support both it and rebase argument after > you have synced some infrastructures. > > Good point, we need to make sure the support for the rebase={branch} > argument is integrated into the get_reruns.py script in dpdk-ci. The > UNH team made that addition and it is available for patch review: > https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/ci/patch/20250611205849.72165-1-probb@iol.unh.edu/ > > Maybe you can apply it, give it a run and add a tested by tag to the > patch if it is working for you? Yes, I have tested it and it is working for me. This patch has a little changes in the inputs and outputs to get_reruns.py, and I need to make corresponding changes to our current implementation of retest. > In order to make sure it was working I submitted a placeholder > loongson recheck request with the rebase argument (requesting the main > branch) included on the DPDK mailing list. Right now if I run the > script with the following args it produces this json: > > python3 tools/get_reruns.py -ts 2025-06-10 --contexts > loongarch-compilation > > output json: > > { >     "retests": { >         "34851": { >             "contexts": [ >                 "loongarch-compilation" >             ], >             "arguments": { >                 "rebase": "main" >             } >         } >     }, >     "last_comment_timestamp": "2025-06-11T20:29:39.327426" > } --------------A63A7DE0A44A22925E3C2DE7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Patrick Robb,

Thanks for you efforts on retest framework! The get_reruns.py script is really helpful. We will support the rebase argument this week.

On 2025/6/12 5:05AM, Patrick Robb wrote:
Hi Min Zhou,

Thanks for the response and for getting some retest support online! I agree the next reasonable steps are to continue to align out processes, in part so that the lab behavior is predictable according to what is documented on dpdk.org. 

On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 8:50 PM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn> wrote:

Yes, we don't support the rebase argument. Meanwhile, for the sake of simplicity, the rechecking behavior at Loongson lab is a little different from the default behavior. we recheck the patches on the latest HEAD of the branch selected by pw_maintainers_cli.py script. This behavior is same to that of the first testing for the commit at Loongson lab. It's ok to be consistent with the defualt behavior. Maybe we can support both it and rebase argument after you have synced some infrastructures.

Good point, we need to make sure the support for the rebase={branch} argument is integrated into the get_reruns.py script in dpdk-ci. The UNH team made that addition and it is available for patch review: https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/ci/patch/20250611205849.72165-1-probb@iol.unh.edu/

Maybe you can apply it, give it a run and add a tested by tag to the patch if it is working for you?
Yes, I have tested it and it is working for me. This patch has a little changes in the inputs and outputs to get_reruns.py, and I need to make corresponding changes to our current implementation of retest.
In order to make sure it was working I submitted a placeholder loongson recheck request with the rebase argument (requesting the main branch) included on the DPDK mailing list. Right now if I run the script with the following args it produces this json:

python3 tools/get_reruns.py -ts 2025-06-10 --contexts loongarch-compilation

output json: 

{
    "retests": {
        "34851": {
            "contexts": [
                "loongarch-compilation"
            ],
            "arguments": {
                "rebase": "main"
            }
        }
    },
    "last_comment_timestamp": "2025-06-11T20:29:39.327426"
}
--------------A63A7DE0A44A22925E3C2DE7--