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 D5BECA0524 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:47:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD72C1610A9; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:47:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B881610A8; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:47:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08055C018B; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:47:36 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= LrU2MXQaAdffEgfVBCyeXQMTl3YD5hC3qBtHvahhywI=; b=U6vep2154Lkq8x4p V+Pa7eLRt5iM3rROBaGOx/MVeCCC7BDkJGcsrcnR4NmX5HztvUbW++S4hIcUOqTB oyfOowva4ngZuQr+LjY8t6IVQMcaBVTZOaiwFQlDeDOXy3cqk3fWUp4iAyAOS3DY C4hs57kg7J9/g55hBjM7c5MEsHam8GhGskUHiQlMSj7osGoflNKcIfJYTZcI+1PH xD9ypR69Fe/Z2F3tc+X0W7D/S3gAlMqum7qMizrw6PlyAQt6lJZb7WZG89augFfm remEJPL6eCNGPEq/prB+K8TEQJxf7CGFUd7imX6Rd5TUllJI9rNMXwLEcP0y16/1 c7mQhg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=LrU2MXQaAdffEgfVBCyeXQMTl3YD5hC3qBtHvahhy wI=; b=Mq+WvmhAXpJilUZUvs26JL3FNU7022tKgtlzhh48yHT2AMhoyegyKrxcP utpKOU79VWlktvnQSzRCUBDr+p0zqyqwLIWo+84q6j1JjiJ+EK24GOCc+vSDxV+U doBhALL9srDeAInpJoYQB//tU/JYRfr8lgWeNbKHOOdInOCcfxBYOqToeh3Jh7v5 2A0IQIex9Np2n29kyFxKatpJVF75poiErZeSfTeggjUMZhDEjSRzPWEg3XuQZQt9 XvFELjswhT1nMzbbdpL+1tYgsxdCPMlD/Hz6WKL9QD/2y12L7NMklNdy8SP15KL1 whaSYqFdc2qKJRnDDHggym4DrQpdw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudekledgkedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6A7161080063; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:47:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Aaron Conole Cc: dev@dpdk.org, ci@dpdk.org, Michael Santana , Lincoln Lavoie , dpdklab , david.marchand@redhat.com Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:47:34 +0200 Message-ID: <21294945.pYO5sEOfX6@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [RFC] Proposal for allowing rerun of tests 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 Sender: "ci" 13/04/2021 15:50, Aaron Conole: > During the various CI pipelines, sometimes a test setup or lab will > have an internal failure unrelated to the specific patch. Perhaps > 'master' branch (or the associated -next branch) is broken and we cannot > get a successful run anyway. Perhaps a network outage occurs during > infrastructure setup. Perhaps some other transient error clobbers the > setup. In all of these cases the report to the mailing flags the patch > as 'FAIL'. > > It would be very helpful if maintainers had the ability to tell various > CI infrastructures to restart / rerun patch tests. For now, this has to > be done by the individual managers of those labs. Some labs, it isn't > possible. Others, it's possible but is a very time-consuming process to > restart a test case. In all cases, a maintainer needs to spend time > communicating with a lab manager. This could be made a bit nicer. I agree > One proposal we (Michael and I) have toyed with for our lab is having > the infrastructure monitor patchwork comments for a restart flag, and > kick off based on that information. Patchwork tracks all of the > comments for each patch / series so we could look at the series that > are still in a state for 'merging' (new, assigned, etc) and check the > patch .comments API for new comments. Getting the data from PW should > be pretty simple - but I think that knowing whether to kick off the > test might be more difficult. We have concerns about which messages we > should accept (for example, can anyone ask for a series to be rerun, and > we'll need to track which rerun messages we've accepted). The > convention needs to be something we all can work with (ie: /Re-check: > [checkname] or something as a single line in the email). > > This is just a start to identify and explain the concern. Maybe there > are other issues we've not considered, or maybe folks think this is a > terrible idea not worth spending any time developing. I think there's > enough use for it that I am raising it here, and we can discuss it. First question: WHO should be allowed to ask for a re-run? - everybody - patchwork delegate - a list of maintainers Second question: HOW requesting a re-run? - comment in email with formatted message - patchwork button - postal letter Third question: WHERE hosting this mechanism? - only one answer: in dpdk-ci.git consumed by labs