On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 2:24AM, Patrick Robb wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 1:12 PM Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com
<mailto:acon...@redhat.com>> wrote:
Why not something like:
Recheck-request: [attribute-list],[test-list]...
For example, then we can do:
Recheck-request: rebase=[identifier],....
where identifier is a branch specifier (or the word 'latest')?
I hadn't thought about the option of allowing branch specifiers. Agree
that allowing a human correction process for the pw_maintainer_cli.py
script choosing the wrong branch sounds helpful.
My original idea was offering 2 options (test original artifact, or
re-apply on latest). Do we want to support for checking out to a
specific commit and re-applying there? I figured that would not be
worth it (too much of a niche case), but your comments are making me
reconsider.
I agree with you that allowing developers to correct the target branch
is useful. But, the developer should just provide the name of branch
instead of commit ID, which is more reasonable. Of course, the rebasing
option is more important. So, I consider we can allow developers to
submit a request as following format:
Recheck-request:
rebase=True|branch=main|contexts=iol-compile-amd64-testing,
iol-broadcom-Performance,...
We can use "|" as the separator, for example. `rebase` and `branch` can
be optional and we can use the default values if the developer doesn't
provide them. The default is not rebasing for `rebase` option. The
default is the branch chosen by pw_maintainer_cli.py script for `branch`
option. The `contexts` option is required.
Just spit-balling on syntax.
That said, I agree - if a rebase has been requested, all tests need to
be rerun. Maybe we should consider that the test labels should be
added
with a run number or something? Or we could also include that the run
is a rerun. That way for labs that don't currently support the
recheck
request framework, we can easily tell that they weren't re-tried.
so re-report with a modified test label? That is good in that it shows
the behavior more clearly. But, it also means we will not overwrite
any fails. So the fail will still be there, and the patchwork patch
page will grow a huge table. Maybe this is fine.
Re-report with a modified test label may be better. That can tell people
more information about the CI testings, such as that the retest indeed
happened.
Also raises the point of getting more coverage for the retest
framework at other labs. I will email Min Zhou regarding how he uses
the dpdk-ci project for the loongson build jobs and see how well that
can integrate with the get_reruns.py script.
