Re: Email based retests for the Loongarch lab

[zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3277 bytes --]

Hi Patrick Robb,

On 2025/7/25 10:24PM, Patrick Robb wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 8:50 AM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn 
> <mailto:zhoumin@loongson.cn>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Patrick Robb,
>
>     On 2025/7/9 8:49AM, Patrick Robb wrote:
>>     Hi Zhoumin,
>>
>>     Aaron did approve the get_reruns.py patch for the rebase arg and
>>     merge it to dpdk-ci. So, you are good to pull that into your
>>     dpdk-ci fork.
>>
>     Thanks for your contributions. I have used this script to support
>     the retest with rebase arg in Loongson lab.
>>     On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 12:16 AM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn
>>     <mailto:zhoumin@loongson.cn>> wrote:
>>
>>>         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.
>>>
>>     Okay, thanks. When you get the free time to implement these
>>     change please ping me so I know we are ready for any next steps
>>     (like updating the labs recheck support status on the DPDK website).
>     We support the rebase arg now when request to retest. But there
>     maybe a little difference between Loongson lab and other labs. We
>     recheck the patches on the latest HEAD of the branch specified by
>     rebase arg if has or selected by pw_maintainers_cli.py script. I
>     want to know if there will be any problems with this behaviour? Is
>     it acceptable?
>
>
> The behavior you describe is correct - when the rebase argument is 
> used, the patch should be applied to HEAD of the branch specified by 
> the rebase arg.
>
> However, I do believe there is a discrepancy in our labs behavior when 
> it comes to retests which are submitted without the rebase argument. 
> In this case, UNH lab, AWS, and GitHub are running retests on the 
> original patch artifacts without re-applying to the current HEAD at 
> the time of the retest. On the other hand, I believe Loongson does 
> re-apply to HEAD even when the rebase argument is not specified. I 
> think in an ideal world our behavior would be uniform across the labs. 
> What that would require in this case is either:
>
> 1. Loongson changes to retesting without re-apply on HEAD when no 
> rebase argument is given (unclear how much work this is)
I'm glad to say Loongson lab has changed to retesting without re-apply 
on HEAD when no rebase argument is given. We recorded the commit ID of 
the base for the series to test during the first test and use it as the 
base to retest if no rebase argument is specified. We also ensure that 
the patch will be applied to HEAD of the branch specified by the rebase 
argument if it exists.
> OR
> 2. The other labs change their behavior to just re-apply on HEAD for 
> every retest, regardless of the rebase argument situation (probably 
> not a lot of implementation effort, but does reduce user flexibility a 
> little).
>
> Sounds like a good topic to discuss at an upcoming CI meeting. :)
>
> I will send the dpdk-web patch noting that you have added rebase 
> coverage. Thanks Min Zhou.
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7479 bytes --]