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 2445EA0A02 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 11:38:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1271140143; Fri, 21 May 2021 11:38:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4342040041 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 11:38:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1621589923; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=F+RQ0/JYUclluXfZmZeadB8vT76keXp7c0mOfrMWMn0=; b=PVcF4vuTIsxxBbRd0XbdM2Y5YEoW8GwQutuDkbplOWpAUVHQ0MO5z7WFwmPe+oAhaH4phL AAC4HA/kFoQSkOsa9H7CerQej5wbomgWdftTfvwChhy6DjBKExvOddhhkSADL7tn+0TXix HVdefH62mK0Qx9aqnwI07lr89ZLs89Y= Received: from mail-ua1-f72.google.com (mail-ua1-f72.google.com [209.85.222.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-433-k6hve6DgNfaWsJROitfMVA-1; Fri, 21 May 2021 05:38:42 -0400 X-MC-Unique: k6hve6DgNfaWsJROitfMVA-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f72.google.com with SMTP id t19-20020ab021530000b029020bc458f62fso7424878ual.20 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 02:38:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F+RQ0/JYUclluXfZmZeadB8vT76keXp7c0mOfrMWMn0=; b=cUJ5PEQsosOQx3TahzdhYG03kzaoSmsqmADDhK+keGpD7yjIInN4vJH7BlRAvERpMG GrQ/9B87ks72ll+fcKhjiCkf5NjUPV7NWksHeB3aHQOs25HAaJMx8VitH3+A9yztKoww NTR2p+r4SkfWJw+zOzMA4O9SNGzGNzS+I3bIKHWgLgYpohtx/DRKUYZxtIFfNEr+Twnm SzysHR2H7h/UCmHsJMSZ766COgGMcbrsXzFEBJHHpzBZpoo5jzR4WWqq5J8yLnramMWi Vwb4v6Pl229mwRHFL4McWq/q8vHtR78JumfLxdaMSKQ6dTLQc47zVghV6T06ogsLAM3r 8Esw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533UQXmPtp2rhMmcrQSQLV8nX9Ih0ZArTHnIUPCJtK9NGAqS7vAf R+frNHJfqO8CD5Te5MwK94+dpSltrpHJLP9R5e8Pumz3L7yZlp5hvxnUCZk8lSrdTMp7bmL1zIP w0/aqElZgmT5XR9Iicw== X-Received: by 2002:a1f:91d5:: with SMTP id t204mr9285568vkd.18.1621589921604; Fri, 21 May 2021 02:38:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqqOJnISI5+U8QrcqsQZNWMaspiYz8GwroKe/0cLrcj0zdvuOcgBBMgh2kuJoESHAzKOPXy8p97rtQLvEQoIM= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:91d5:: with SMTP id t204mr9285554vkd.18.1621589921381; Fri, 21 May 2021 02:38:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 11:38:30 +0200 Message-ID: To: Aaron Conole Cc: Michael Santana , ci@dpdk.org, Juraj Linkes , Bruce Richardson , Thomas Monjalon , Lincoln Lavoie Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [RFC pw-ci] pw_mon: check for recheck requested comments 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" On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:05 PM Aaron Conole wrote: > David Marchand writes: > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 4:18 PM Aaron Conole wrote: > >> > >> ENOTREADY: Missing the actual recheck logic... needs some input / > >> design before committing to anything. > >> > >> When a developer wants to ask for a test case recheck (for example, > >> maybe to rerun the github-actions test suite), we scan for the specific > >> line: > >> > >> ^Recheck-request: .*$ > >> > >> The line would break up as: > >> > >> Recheck-request: [context] > >> > >> where '[context]' is the name of the check (as it appears in the UI). > >> For example, if we look at a patch that has 'github-robot', we can > >> request a recheck of the series by sending an email reply with the line: > > > > It could happen that the tree was broken and we want to rerun all or a > > list of tests. > > Coud we accept multiple ^Recheck-request lines? > > I guess we can solve this with the comma separated list. Yes, it looks fine. > > > Or maybe have a magic "all" context? > > That might require more thought, but it's possible. Do you think it > would be better than doing a comma separated list? No, an explicit list is actually better. When a new check is added, for someone looking at the mails (maybe 2/3 weeks later), and reading just "all", he would have to know what checks were available at the time. -- David Marchand