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 664FD42C4A for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 09:04:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395BE410F6; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 09:04:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF9340A84 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 09:04:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC5F5C0076; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 03:04:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 07 Jun 2023 03:04:19 -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=fm1; t= 1686121459; x=1686207859; bh=JHWHOEinpyamv29R8GYDfIUnTWpj9RdYAiJ kk6H8Qq8=; b=qFiTz5DRRTzk+T/r2wLHwMLx0CQDA5H1JkmUoeyVb5cuA8WA2L+ 1HhilBvJWNBlrBLqe8J5RxppPDrGbDci2m7wo7rbmCusf2apVC7J7oXDZq59bJDD S/Asj/Pg0HqSMKTFIhw3OxU3SeV9FjsJfT7tA+S15tYhmWzAz4NXBMH+M0bLZPTT Zr4u0e6J3FH21g8n6j4FrRbb7+Vg+x4LZOaR+sBTwCeTczHN80q2fNq4JIg2MIGN mioeYLO+SQ0GVhtJv5jNZJ44Qby2gGupG/AOVWTO/GGDiIRrUOCs6eHjl7TZ+9/9 AJxzrCTYMxXwuk8rpb6jcl7WxgilxiRjoaA== 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=fm1; t= 1686121459; x=1686207859; bh=JHWHOEinpyamv29R8GYDfIUnTWpj9RdYAiJ kk6H8Qq8=; b=PRJnt2tgxW28r4SvegviOZzEa0i2FcAhnsuf8zCDtoiRnNg9HNV fGK5SrVKnaFpqcqytBVWSMVLGZcjF/IcdtYSoaxLOcTymxiK3DYvt0BYxBpoyto5 TLJZ5psDrQ84lMfAPcc9nJ8ZpcMiDZDuFHADes+a5dmp53dgMFe46mLZO+TgdHkC MKub5geLLOOe0SPxyaHXLRIKZMab9Dbj5j8/FOqAtD5A6uJ5LGQelHJ/mW1hKISo PZk5LlpdjtbQUCru2tlEhNXceIFYYATFmc/Lv6Cyw3JthaYCXtiaMIZi2ZZ80Ei5 /CyDSU0+HhbtNTQJtLQcRPZQwP0Wjs47pHQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrgedtfedgjeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeettdeggeeffeehgffhieefiedvvddtieeljeduiedvueeuheeg gfehleetgeetffenucffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgpdgthhgvtghkphgrthgthh drshhhnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhep thhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 03:04:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Patrick Robb Cc: ci@dpdk.org, "Tu, Lijuan" , Aaron Conole , zhoumin , Michael Santana , Lincoln Lavoie Subject: Re: Email Based Re-Testing Framework Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 09:04:16 +0200 Message-ID: <2110236.vrqWZg68TM@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: 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 06/06/2023 18:56, Patrick Robb: > Hello all, > > I'd like to revive the conversation about a request from the community for > an email based re-testing framework. The idea is that using one > standardized format, dpdk developers could email the test-report mailing > list, requesting a rerun on their patch series for "X" set of tests at "Y" > lab. I think that since patchwork testing labels (ie. > iol-broadcom-Performance, github-robot: build, loongarch-compilation) are > already visible on patch pages on patchwork, those labels are the most > reasonable ones to expect developers to use when requesting a re-test. We > probably wouldn't want to get any more general than that, like, say, > rerunning all CI testing for a specific patch series at a specific lab, > since it would result in a significant amount of "wasted" testing capacity. > > The standard email format those of us at the Community Lab are thinking of > is like below. Developers would request retests by emailing the test-report > mailing list with email bodies like: > > [RETEST UNH-IOL] > iol-abi-testing > iol-broadcom-Performance What would be the purpose of [RETEST UNH-IOL]? We need to specify the patchwork identifier of the patch. We could make a script similar to the checkpatch run on dpdk.org: https://git.dpdk.org/tools/dpdk-ci/tree/tests/checkpatch.sh The easiest way to run it is to make the script as the receiver of the mail. If the lab can receive the mails from the mailing list, then just need to filter the retest requests for its own lab.