<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 2:24AM, Patrick
Robb wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJvnSUAsxwCZTd_vZgfpGFmiLqsG6icQ1a=Q62F+S7qtkBtRRQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at
1:12 PM Aaron Conole <<a href="mailto:aconole@redhat.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">aconole@redhat.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Why not something like:<br>
<br>
Recheck-request: [attribute-list],[test-list]...<br>
<br>
For example, then we can do:<br>
<br>
Recheck-request: rebase=[identifier],....<br>
<br>
where identifier is a branch specifier (or the word
'latest')?<br>
</blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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:</p>
<p>Recheck-request:
rebase=True|branch=main|contexts=iol-compile-amd64-testing,
iol-broadcom-Performance,...</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJvnSUAsxwCZTd_vZgfpGFmiLqsG6icQ1a=Q62F+S7qtkBtRRQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Just spit-balling on syntax.<br>
<br>
<br>
That said, I agree - if a rebase has been requested, all
tests need to<br>
be rerun. Maybe we should consider that the test labels
should be added<br>
with a run number or something? Or we could also include
that the run<br>
is a rerun. That way for labs that don't currently support
the recheck<br>
request framework, we can easily tell that they weren't
re-tried.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
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.
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJvnSUAsxwCZTd_vZgfpGFmiLqsG6icQ1a=Q62F+S7qtkBtRRQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>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.<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>