Josep, > By having CI commenting on the PR everyone watching the PR (author and reviewers) will get notified when it's done.
Faster feedback is an immediate improvement I'd like to pursue. Even having a separate PR status check for "compile + validate" would save the author a trip digging through logs. Doing this with GH Actions is pretty straightforward. David, 1. I will bring this up with Infra. They probably have some idea of my intentions, due to all my questions, but I'll raise it directly. 2. I can think of two approaches for this. First, we can write a script that produces the desired output given the junit XML reports. This can then be used to leave a comment on the PR. Another is to add a summary block to the workflow run. For example in this workflow: https://github.com/mumrah/kafka/actions/runs/10409319037?pr=5 below the workflow graph, there are summary sections. These are produced by steps of the workflow. There are also Action plugins that render junit reports in various ways. --- Here is a PR that adds the action I've been experimenting with https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16895. I've restricted it to only run on pushes to branches named "gh-" to avoid suddenly overwhelming the ASF runner pool. I have split the workflow into two jobs which are reported as separate status checks (see https://github.com/mumrah/kafka/pull/5 for example). On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 9:00 AM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi David, > > Thanks for working on this. Overall, I am supportive. I have two > questions/comments. > > 1. I wonder if we should discuss with the infra team in order to ensure > that they have enough capacity for us to use the action runners. Our CI is > pretty greedy in general. We could also discuss with them whether they > could move the capacity that we used in Jenkins to the runners. I think > that Kafka was one of the most, if not the most, heavy users of the shared > Jenkins infra. I think that they will appreciate the heads up. > > 2. Would it be possible to improve how failed tests are reported? For > instance, the tests in your PR failed with `1448 tests completed, 2 > failed`. First it is quite hard to see it because the logs are long. Second > it is almost impossible to find those two failed tests. In my opinion, we > can not use it in the current state to merge pull requests. Do you know if > there are ways to improve this? > > Best, > David > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 2:44 PM 黃竣陽 <s7133...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello David, > > > > I find the Jenkins UI to be quite unfriendly for developers, and the > > Apache Jenkins instance is often unreliable. > > On the other hand, the new GitHub Actions UI is much more appealing to > me. > > If GitHub Actions proves to be more > > stable than Jenkins, I believe it would be a worthwhile change to switch > > to GitHub Actions. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Best Regards, > > Jiunn Yang > > > Josep Prat <josep.p...@aiven.io.INVALID> 於 2024年8月16日 下午4:57 寫道： > > > > > > Hi David, > > > One of the enhancements we can have with this change (it's easier to do > > > with GH actions) is to write back the result of the CI run as a comment > > on > > > the PR itself. I believe not needing to periodically check CI to see if > > the > > > run finished would be a great win. By having CI commenting on the PR > > > everyone watching the PR (author and reviewers) will get notified when > > it's > > > done. > > > > > -- David Arthur
