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 CBD00A0350 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 15:00:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F004275D; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 15:00:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A24440042 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 15:00:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1642773637; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=M6hotGnK+VmPHNOpwqa1WzxrAolhAjodekszydoK6kE=; b=Y4cCQKaIPsETN9CJ83aJgwmcumCFIAMN6wHvhbS0kc5jEKfKVr4IrHjSXUCMw3sGotWTfE xQpXOZItkAm9ZWNnAv4zUCGdkcCTHD3f637nPuSqywwHd5W7d4pPpGtFXRPBs5rjh6EzuO sbWig54dYTqapmdXci8mnZhhw9Iw/iw= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-632-MyPsWwS6PKqWvBOWZJUPEQ-1; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:00:35 -0500 X-MC-Unique: MyPsWwS6PKqWvBOWZJUPEQ-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id a189-20020a1c98c6000000b0034e32e18a21so3295527wme.9 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 06:00:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent :content-language:to:cc:references:from:subject:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=M6hotGnK+VmPHNOpwqa1WzxrAolhAjodekszydoK6kE=; b=JbBUU7+cXc01rNNQHpA+CdFoUN+wpaa7/b4DNtUbNfZJpdObiSezKRkb6zUaTFsvWa vndcmMCkeTLEnQs1GZAgogScmZFFt+9bl8UJ8gXkkyVg91FQsvMrY4MrHD21r+pAIz8z bHLhfXEZK+IsNZyIgwvxfErGJMohd78wCBr0qNJFSC+hyzLw8VeWzpogEdrqNPYd2rh4 1lioY0MDuz2BjKtsQXLYMOfXQAN2yTNOQ2dNSBJaCOgTSyF0LJToUrRmzVHdBO0L6GSm A5L5A/BVn/vTNYFhLIFMhPUDTOagOAbLUb4nPmRW/QKmARtoue7FuN2f5H1cxEoCwMpT hcsw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531f8JcuMtcsuBbLwuVmgofzjWSSXyY2Ft2ohdP+uUeWV8DLTcuo nZHpjyPAwwSOUUm3mSTgElOiiipllBLHDYCCyBDd0lSxzI8Z3mOejXlejhU8EwU+KBR8x+ourzM 8ug== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:59a2:: with SMTP id p2mr4006462wrr.54.1642773634693; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 06:00:34 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxmklKhso94p5qxrEOiE3o1/OOYi93pv/3Gf2AOIV8FFeUObXsq8wKRokbL+wB17ecvnhdTw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:59a2:: with SMTP id p2mr4006443wrr.54.1642773634480; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 06:00:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.36] ([78.19.108.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g17sm15143008wmq.9.2022.01.21.06.00.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Jan 2022 06:00:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 14:00:32 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0 To: Aaron Conole , dev@dpdk.org, ci@dpdk.org Cc: Michael Santana , Lincoln Lavoie , dpdklab References: From: Kevin Traynor Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [RFC] Proposal for allowing rerun of tests In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=ktraynor@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 On 13/04/2021 14:50, Aaron Conole wrote: > Greetings, > > 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. > Just to tie two relevant threads together. I made a request in http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/ci/2022-January/001593.html for a "retest" button (or really any manual but self-sufficient way) to kick-off immediately what is run in periodic branch testing. Something might be there already, that i'm just not aware of. This could be used by LTS maintainers, and possibly main, *-next branch maintainers coming up to releases. thanks, Kevin. > 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. > > Thanks, > -Aaron >