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 A4D1AA0C4B for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:38:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729DA4067A; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:38:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ej1-f46.google.com (mail-ej1-f46.google.com [209.85.218.46]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E0940150 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:38:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ej1-f46.google.com with SMTP id ji1so4151417ejc.4 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 07:38:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hmWiG++bey73aZ+byNGOVmdasfUBSDoZWmVRG1yIWSE=; b=RKvhjoP5pb/jyLU0PY+YqH11q2Go1AC0lpfyo4su539IJceLcuc96Ohs9k4wWS6oxh IK6SbUf76LYv6qpJNN8RmrfIfmT1opM34ohyHL7YbbLeMmycJIb0vyCE6yZ/X/gAUdHS uMXZZKn4It6miZvR/6H6nR/b6bi/6zOm1aqVI= 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=hmWiG++bey73aZ+byNGOVmdasfUBSDoZWmVRG1yIWSE=; b=oa5LAgjFVYQNXEgWnzvNOal0ItmnaMR5oWQl7HxISxrgq4FIKJz8qoaS+64HC2cPbq 8ro+/uBhAjfQlVrQ5DSVo/fffphNYIguNrxtofDPR8WvLtVkrJrV+HzUUmQov53smkCY 86stDj8DZ62FuwB/0JP2VMqzXu5rQ6iI2WH2sg3W8zqyrg4ADCEWxf7eyfuxXRvX/DDO uFXVCK2fvmxDD1X2l7GIDTLaCdsA6JL0M6OiW3zs0u2+1VsxtV56D2S7QXuF/aOtAIhX f9z5L6ilKhDqxDzXdnGikNUt8qIwMyPfbSRPnaZO5WNu5KC6Du59nFGKon+oMrLdfZm1 s47Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533X+PgC3VPbDJrzB3jIH0vkohBFUeNc6S9Bw9ROi/qM3MePezWz wfQpZ1XNyam14bo1kYQDCHTTrd27yk8fvaAAsnIHVA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzU4OCxR3YVWvpCz0YEeccFoeJEgl8+h46H3buzauy2x3Qxl8RUrAsfism4DYFJBRgMfbXSCZS3yh1tV9R4+s4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:29c8:: with SMTP id y8mr5614631eje.312.1623940713887; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 07:38:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Lincoln Lavoie Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:38:22 -0400 Message-ID: To: David Marchand Cc: Aaron Conole , Michael Santana , ci@dpdk.org, Juraj Linkes , Bruce Richardson , Thomas Monjalon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006355ba05c4f729c8" 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" --0000000000006355ba05c4f729c8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Aaron, For planning, we have this on our development schedule in the community lab for the "Q3 Sprint" so that would likely happen during the second half of the summer. I don't think we had any specific comments on the mail / request syntax. I think a lot more of the devils are in the details around storing off the information like message IDs, etc. As well as how long we're looking for retest requests, i.e. the "active" patches, etc. Cheers, Lincoln On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 5:38 AM David Marchand wrote: > 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 > > -- *Lincoln Lavoie* Principal Engineer, Broadband Technologies 21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824 lylavoie@iol.unh.edu https://www.iol.unh.edu +1-603-674-2755 (m) --0000000000006355ba05c4f729c8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi = Aaron,

For planning, we h= ave this on our development schedule in the community lab for the "Q3 = Sprint" so that would likely happen during the second half of the summ= er.=C2=A0 I don't think we had any specific comments on the mail / requ= est syntax.=C2=A0 I think a lot more of the devils are in the details aroun= d storing off the information like message IDs, etc.=C2=A0 As well as how l= ong we're looking for retest requests, i.e. the "active" patc= hes, etc.=C2=A0=C2=A0

Che= ers,
Lincoln

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 5:38 AM David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>= wrote:
On Thu, = May 20, 2021 at 11:05 PM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wrote:
> David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 4:18 PM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wrote: > >>
> >> ENOTREADY: Missing the actual recheck logic... needs some inp= ut /
> >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 design before commit= ting to anything.
> >>
> >> When a developer wants to ask for a test case recheck (for ex= ample,
> >> maybe to rerun the github-actions test suite), we scan for th= e specific
> >> line:
> >>
> >> ^Recheck-request: .*$
> >>
> >> The line would break up as:
> >>
> >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Recheck-request: [context]
> >>
> >> where '[context]' is the name of the check (as it app= ears 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 wit= h 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.=C2=A0 Do you t= hink 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<= br> checks were available at the time.


--
David Marchand



--
Lincoln Lavoie
Prin= cipal Engineer, Broadband Technologies
21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, = Durham, NH 03824
+1-603-674-= 2755 (m)

--0000000000006355ba05c4f729c8--