On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 4:47 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 13/04/2021 15:50, Aaron Conole: > > 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. >
Yes, this is something that is often discussed with other maintainers. > > > 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. > > First question: WHO should be allowed to ask for a re-run? > - everybody > - patchwork delegate Patchwork delegate requires to maintain a map between pw logins and an actual mail address (if we go with email for the second point). > - a list of maintainers I'd vote on any maintainer from MAINTAINERS, _but_ it must be from the files in the repo, not in the series being tested. So maybe the easier is to have an explicit list... ? - author Just listing this option for discussion, but this is dangerous, as any user could then call reruns. > > Second question: HOW requesting a re-run? > - comment in email with formatted message > - patchwork button > - postal letter While the postal letter has its charm, an email on the ml is better than pw for me. It leaves a trace on who asked and when. And I am not sure how you could trigger a CI rerun with patchwork anyway :-). > > Third question: WHERE hosting this mechanism? > - only one answer: in dpdk-ci.git consumed by labs -- David Marchand
