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 7EEACA0A02 for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 23:05:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4017540143; Thu, 20 May 2021 23:05:18 +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 2CB6D40041 for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 23:05:17 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1621544716; 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=+vTm97Mv7U7FsMbg5Nd/TuZNJDMW4BFgSlmVP67bH3Q=; b=Hq2zmNHBnaw0HBU0r7efknNbnZvfg8H84Pq+YR8522PUEE06rlRRNmtU7L0/9w6xGp+i5u 29l6DKf/Z01rZ6TDZJsC4YkHbYyEeY2MuICkmq57Lo102VZu4yOCAExbM+0UVBOLDVDQLq eR4KURTTJ32TK5bGhJioCIo7NBAvF/o= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-281-IZOPScpMOxO1puo4QqUgjw-1; Thu, 20 May 2021 17:05:14 -0400 X-MC-Unique: IZOPScpMOxO1puo4QqUgjw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D32C80006E; Thu, 20 May 2021 21:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTPC1VM0NT (ovpn-118-71.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.118.71]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 132B55D765; Thu, 20 May 2021 21:05:04 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: David Marchand Cc: Michael Santana , ci@dpdk.org, Juraj Linkes , Bruce Richardson , Thomas Monjalon , Lincoln Lavoie References: Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 17:05:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: (David Marchand's message of "Thu, 20 May 2021 15:38:35 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=aconole@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain 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" 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. > 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? >> >> Recheck-request: github-robot >> >> 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. >> >> As an additional change, we run after the 'superseded' and 'completed' >> checks, to ensure that we don't bother parsing comments from older >> series that aren't relevant any longer. > > There was also an ask on filtering requesters (only maintainers and > patch authors can ask for a recheck).