Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> writes: > On 2019-12-02 3:15 p.m., Tapani Pälli wrote: >> On 11/15/19 8:41 PM, Mark Janes wrote: >>> Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> writes: >>> >>>> On 2019-11-15 4:02 p.m., Mark Janes wrote: >>>>> Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Now that the GitLab CI pipeline tests a snapshot of piglit with >>>>>> llvmpipe >>>>>> (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/2468), the >>>>>> question has come up how to deal with inter-dependent Mesa/piglit >>>>>> changes (where merging only one or the other causes some piglit >>>>>> regressions). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> First of all, let it be clear that just merging the Mesa changes as-is >>>>>> and breaking the GitLab CI pipeline is not acceptable. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From the Mesa POV, the easiest solution is: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Merge the piglit changes >>>>>> 2. In the Mesa MR (merge request), add a commit which updates >>>>>> piglit[0] >>>>>> 3. If the CI pipeline is green, the MR can be merged >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In case one wants to avoid alarms from external CI systems, another >>>>>> possibility is: >>>>> >>>>> For the Intel CI, no alarm is generated if the piglit test is pushed >>>>> first. Normal development process includes writing a piglit test to >>>>> illustrate the bug that is being fixed. >>>> >>>> Cool, but what if the piglit changes affect the results of existing >>>> tests? That was the situation yesterday which prompted this thread. >>> >>> We attribute the status change to piglit in the CI config, within a few >>> hours. The test shows up as a failure in CI until it is triaged. >> >> I think we have a problem with current gitlab CI process. >> >> Right now if someone needs to update piglit commit used by CI, he also >> ends up fixing and editing the .gitlab-ci/piglit/quick_gl.txt (and >> glslparser+quick_shader.txt) as CI reports numerous failures because of >> completely unrelated stuff as meanwhile people added other tests, >> removed tests and modified them. > > This is at least somewhat intentional, as the results of any newly added > tests should be carefully checked for plausibility.
If a piglit (or any other suite) commit causes a test failure, the failure is not a Mesa regression, by definition. CI is for identifying regressions. The simple fact that a failure is due to a non-Mesa commit means it can be immediately masked in CI. >> I think we should turn such warnings on only when we have more >> sophisticated algorithm to detect actual regression (not just 'state >> change', like additional test or removed test). > > It's unclear what exactly you're proposing. In order to catch > regressions (e.g. pass -> warn, pass -> fail, pass -> skip, pass -> > crash), we need a list of all tests on at least one side of each > transition. We're currently keeping the list of all > warning/failing/skipped/crashing tests, but not passing tests (to keep > the lists as small as possible). CI must track the development of the test suites to capture the the required transitions for tests. If CI does not track each test suite commit, then some developer (eg Tapani) has to go and triage test results from other piglit committers in order to deploy tests in CI. This is a barrier to test-first development, and it is also unfair to the developers that are diligent with testing. Piglit and Crucible are maintained by the Mesa community and it makes sense that Mesa CI should track their development. Tracking other test suites (dEQP, CTS, etc) means that the Mesa community may be distracted by test failures that are bugs in the suite instead of bugs in Mesa. Mesa developers are not enabled to fix bugs in dEQP. However, tracking external suites also identifies new conformance requirements that Mesa will eventually be required to pass. In practice, some test suites are easy to track and have developers that are eager to resolve issues that are identified by the Mesa community (eg dEQP, VulkanCTS). Other suites are in a constant state of build churn and are hard to track (Skia). Tracking test suites can be done without too much effort, but it requires a centralized role similar to a release manager. > One possibility might be to remove the summary at the end of the lists. > That would allow new passing tests to be silently added, but it would > mean we could no longer catch pass -> notrun regressions. > > > -- > Earthling Michel Dänzer | https://redhat.com > Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
