Ole Streicher writes ("Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies
fail or cause FTBFS"):
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > * It eliminates a timing problem, where the testing migration
> > infrastructure[1] needs to somehow decide whether the test have
> ^^^ reference/footnote not found
> > been run. (This is needed because in the future we may want to
> > accelerate migration, perhaps dramatically when there are lots of
> > tests; and then, the testing queue may be longer than the minimum
> > migration delay.)
>
> I would not see this a big problem: the bug can also be filed against a
> migrated package.
That should not be the default. I think you have missed my point. If
the migration delay for a particular upload is less than the waiting
time to get the tests run, then somehow we will need to delay the
migration on the grounds that the tests have not been run.
Obviously this could be done but it involves a new data exchange (and
new protocol) between the testing migration decision tools[1] and the
CI system, which are supposed to be arms-length.
There are other intertwinings: typically batches of packages need to
be tested together, and it's the testing migration system that knows
which packages to test.
So it would be simpler to do the CI as part of the testing migration.
Ultimately this is a decision for Paul I think.
[1] is the same missing footnote as before, which was:
[1] The name "britney" is IMO not cool. I wish it would be renamed.
> Just copying from your other mail:
> > The difficulty with automated bug reports is this: how do you tell
> > whether something is the same bug or not ?
> >
> > If you're not careful, a test which fails 50% of the time will result
> > in an endless stream of new bugs from the CI system which then get
> > auto-closed...
>
> Just allow only one bug report per version pair, report only changes,
> and don't report is another bug for the package pair is still
> open. Either have a local database with the required information, of
> store this as metadata in the bug reports. and query the BTS before
> sending.
>
> Basically the same procedure as one would do manually.
No, it isn't. What you propose produces one bug report per uploaded
version of each dependency. What one would do manually is have one
report that describes the scope of the problem.
Also a manual bug report can have a better introduction.
> > You should help enhance autopkgtest so that a single test script can
> > report results of multiple test. This will involve some new protocol
> > for those test scripts.
>
> Sorry, but I can't evaluate all 9000 tests and categorize them which are
> RC and which are not -- this will not work. It is also not realistic to
> force upstream to do so. The only thing I can do is reactively tag a
> certain failure being RC or not.
You have misunderstood my proposal, I think.
I am suggesting that you should arrange that your 9000 tests each
show up as one test case as far as autopkgtest is concerned. That can
probably be done wholesale: these kind of systems already produce
systematic (or nearly-systematic) output. So you don't need to
categorise them up-front.
Then when you get a test failure you would look at (only) the failing
tests, and perhaps file a bug
To: sub...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: gnomovision monochrome gnomes are pink and blue
Package: gnomovision
Version: 1.2-3
Severity: minor
Control: user ci.debian.net
Control: usertags -1 + nonblock-G32-PINK nonblock-G33-BLUE
The gnomes in these tests should be black and white. This is caught
by the autopkgtests which check the colour configuration.
The bug is cosmetic - even on a monochrome display, you can tell the
gnomes apart.
Doing things this way also means that you fix the bug in the changelog
in the usual way. If you're wrong, the CI will nag you until you
reopen the bug.
FWIW: in my day job I maintain osstest, the Xen Project's CI system,
so I have a lot of experience of how CI blocking workflows should be
managed.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
