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 5C06742C99 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:02:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B83BB41138; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:02:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41F340698 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:01:58 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1686582118; 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=emTKuIPLTo1araqCRkBwUM5zrq+b20zl+HmAXAM5LDA=; b=WZH0RS+XaYrn6R+0J5GhIr1QEdUadL4Gg2yQ1IilsGCoMiG+B6LTGy3Dvf/op0mp5ngHpI DqWHwHHO4RRV/cKVsIUYRyAd9FmgdSDjqYFiqciqQ/d/MvQvuxk9rTw+PFtRedNHZccE2x NUHfIkfw2nsKnojgIj5IG3n5SDZKzEk= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-329-0gcSbENeNLCu_-7-6sWBlw-1; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 11:01:52 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 0gcSbENeNLCu_-7-6sWBlw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CBB41C07840; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 15:01:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTPC1VM0NT (unknown [10.22.17.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89779492B0B; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 15:01:50 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Patrick Robb Cc: Ferruh Yigit , ci@dpdk.org, "Tu, Lijuan" , zhoumin , Michael Santana , Lincoln Lavoie Subject: Re: Email Based Re-Testing Framework References: <3fa6546b-8152-e317-30f0-30d5118b9fc4@amd.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 11:01:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Patrick Robb's message of "Wed, 7 Jun 2023 21:47:07 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Patrick Robb writes: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 8:53=E2=80=AFAM Aaron Conole = wrote: > > Patrick Robb writes: > > > Also it can be useful to run daily sub-tree testing by request, if po= ssible. > > > > That wouldn't be too difficult. I'll make a ticket for this. Although,= for testing on the daily sub-trees, > since that's > > UNH-IOL specific, that wouldn't necessarily have to be done via an ema= il based testing request > framework. We > > could also just add a button to our dashboard which triggers a sub-tre= e ci run. That would help keep > narrow > > the scope of what the email based retesting framework is for. But, bot= h email or a dashboard button > would > > both work.=20 > > We had discussed this long ago - including agreeing on a format, IIRC. > > See the thread starting here: > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/ci/2021-May/001189.html > > The idea was to have a line like: > > Recheck-request: > > I like using this simpler format which is easier to parse. As Thomas poin= ted out, specifying labs does not really > provide extra information if we are already going to request by label/con= text, which is already specifies the > lab. =20 One thing we haven't discussed or determined is if we should have the ability to re-apply the series or simply to rerun the patches based on the original sha sum. There are two cases I can think of: 1. Ephemeral lab/network failures, or flaky unit tests that sometimes fail. In this case, we probably just want to re-run the tree as-is. 2. Failing tree before apply. In this case, we have applied the series to a tree, but the tree isn't in a good state and will fail regardless of the series being applied. WDYT? Does (2) case warrant any consideration as a possible reason to retest? If so, what is the right way of handling that situation? > where was the tests in the check labels. In fact, what > started the discussion was a patch for the pw-ci scripts that > implemented part of it. > > I don't see how to make your proposal as easily parsed. > > WDYT? Can you re-read that thread and come up with comments? > > Will do. And thanks, this thread is very informative.=20 > > It is important to use the 'msgid' field to distinguish recheck > requests. Otherwise, we will continuously reparse the same > recheck request and loop forever. Additionally, we've discussed using a > counter to limit the recheck requests to a single 'recheck' per test > name. > > We can track message ids to avoid considering a single retest request twi= ce. Perhaps we can accomplish the > same thing by tracking retested patchseries ids and their total number of= requested retests (which could be 1 > retest per patchseries).=20 > > +function check_series_needs_retest() { > > + local pw_instance=3D"$1" > + > + series_get_active_branches "$pw_instance" | while IFS=3D\| read -r s= eries_id project url repo branchname; do > + local patch_comments_url=3D$(curl -s "$userpw" "$url" | jq -rc '= .comments') > + if [ "Xnull" !=3D "X$patch_comments_url" ]; then > + local comments_json=3D$(curl -s "$userpw" "$patch_comments_u= rl") > + local seq_end=3D$(echo "$comments_json" | jq -rc 'length') > + if [ "$seq_end" -a $seq_end -gt 0 ]; then > + seq_end=3D$((seq_end-1)) > + for comment_id in $(seq 0 $seq_end); do > + local recheck_requested=3D$(echo "$comments_json" | = jq -rc ".[$comment_id].content" | grep > "^Recheck-request: ") > + if [ "X$recheck_requested" !=3D "X" ]; then > + local msgid=3D$(echo "$comments_json" | jq -rc "= .[$comment_id].msgid") > + run_recheck "$pw_instance" "$series_id" "$projec= t" "$url" "$repo" "$branchname" > "$recheck_requested" "$msgid" > + fi > + done > + fi > + fi > + done > +} > This is already a superior approach to what I had in mind for acquiring c= omments. Unless you're opposed, I > think at the communit lab we can experiment based on this starting point = to verify the process is sound, but I > don't see any problems here.=20 > > I think that if we're able to specify multiple contexts, then there's no= t really any reason to run multiple > rechecks per patchset. > > Agreed. > > There was also an ask on filtering requesters (only maintainers and > > patch authors can ask for a recheck).=20 > > If we can use the maintainers file as a single source of truth that is co= nvenient and stable as the list of > maintainers changes. But, also I think retesting request permission shoul= d be extended to the submitter too. > They may want to initiate a re-run without engaging a maintainer. It's no= t likely to cause a big increase in test > load for us or other labs, so there's no harm there.=20 > > 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.=20 > > Context/Labels rarely change, so I don't think this concern is too seriou= s. But, if people dont mind comma > separating an entire list of contexts, that's fine.=20 > > Thanks, > Patrick