Re: [ovirt-devel] gerrit+ci improvement proposal

From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt;, infra(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 11:34:10 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] gerrit+ci improvement proposal On 06/04, Nir Soffer wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 10:03:02 AM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] gerrit+ci improvement proposal > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > Cc: infra(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org > > > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 9:46:40 AM > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] gerrit+ci improvement proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > To: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Max Kovgan" <mkovgan(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 9:11:10 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] gerrit+ci improvement proposal > > > > > > > > Il 03/06/2015 21:46, Eyal Edri ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > >> From: "Max Kovgan" <mkovgan(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > >> To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > >> Cc: infra(a)ovirt.org > > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 8:22:54 PM > > > > >> Subject: [ovirt-devel] gerrit+ci improvement proposal > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi everyone! > > > > >> We really want to have reliable and snappy CI: to allow short > > > > >> cycles > > > > >> and > > > > >> encourage developers to write tests. > > > > >> > > > > >> # Problem > > > > >> > > > > >> Many patches are neither ready for review nor for CI upon > > > > >> submission, > > > > >> which > > > > >> is OK. > > > > >> But running all the jobs on those patches with limited resources > > > > >> results > > > > >> in: > > > > >> overloaded resources, slow response time, unhappy developers. > > > > >> > > > > >> # Proposed Solution > > > > >> > > > > >> To run less jobs we know we don’t need to, thus making more > > > > >> resources > > > > >> for > > > > >> the > > > > >> jobs we need to run. > > > > >> We have been experimenting to make our CI stabler and quicker to > > > > >> respond > > > > >> by > > > > >> using gerrit flags. This has improved in both directions very well > > > > >> internally. > > > > >> Now it seems a good time to let all the oVirt projects to use > > > > >> this. > > > > >> This solution indirectly promotes reviews and quick tests - “to > > > > >> fail > > > > >> early”, > > > > >> yet full blown static code analysis and long tests to run “when > > > > >> ready”. > > > > >> > > > > >> # How it works > > > > >> > > > > >> 2 new gerrit independent flags are added to gerrit. > > > > >> > > > > >> ## CI flag > > > > >> > > > > >> Will express patch CI status. Values: > > > > >> * +1 CI passed > > > > >> * 0 CI did not run yet > > > > >> * -1 CI failed > > > > >> Permissions for setting: project maintainers (for special cases) > > > > >> should > > > > >> be > > > > >> able to set/override (except Jenkins). > > > > >> > > > > >> ## Workflow flag > > > > >> > > > > >> Will express patch “workflow” state. Values: > > > > >> * 0 Work In Progress > > > > >> * +1 Ready For Review > > > > >> * +2 Ready For Merge > > > > >> Permissions for setting: Owner can set +1, Project Maintainers can > > > > >> set > > > > >> +2 > > > > >> > > > > >> ## Review + CI Integration: > > > > >> > > > > >> Merging [“Submit” button to appear] will require: Review+1, CI+1, > > > > >> Workflow+2 > > > > >> Patch lifecycle now is: > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> patch state |owner |reviewer |maintainer |CI tests |pass > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> added/updated |- |- |- |quick |CI+1 > > > > >> review |Workflow+1|Review+1 |- |heavy |CI+1 > > > > >> merge ready |- |- |Workflow+2 |gating |CI+1 > > > > >> merge |- |- |merge |merge |CI+1 > > > > >> > > > > >> Changes from current workflow: > > > > >> Owner only adds reviewers, now owner needs to set "Workflow+1" for > > > > >> the > > > > >> patch > > > > >> to be reviewed, and heavily auto-tested. > > > > >> Maintainer now needs to set "Workflow+2" and wait for "Submit" > > > > >> button > > > > >> to > > > > >> appear after CI has completed running gating tests. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Next step will be to automate merge the change after Workflow+2 > > > > >> has > > > > >> been > > > > >> set > > > > >> by the Maintainer and gating tests passed. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> ## Why now? > > > > >> > > > > >> It is elimination of waste. The sooner - the better. > > > > >> The solution has been used for a while and it works. > > > > >> Resolving the problem without gerrit involved will lead to adding > > > > >> unreliable > > > > >> code into jobs, and will still be prone to problems: > > > > >> Just recently, 3d ago we’ve tried detecting what to run from > > > > >> jenkins > > > > >> relying only on gerrit comments so that upon Verified+1, we’d > > > > >> run > > > > >> the > > > > >> job. > > > > >> We could not use “Review+1”, because it makes no sense at all, > > > > >> so we > > > > >> left > > > > >> the job to set Verified+1. > > > > >> Meaning - re-trigger itself immediately more than 1 times. > > > > >> > > > > >> Jenkins and its visitors very unhappy, and we had to stop those > > > > >> jobs, > > > > >> clean > > > > >> up the queue, and spam developers. > > > > >> > > > > >> ## OK OK OK. Now what? > > > > >> > > > > >> Now we want your comments and opinions before pushing this > > > > >> further: > > > > >> Please participate in this thread, so we can start trying it out. > > > > >> Ask, Suggest better ideas, all this is welcome. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Best Regards! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> N.B. > > > > >> Of course, this is not written in stone, in case we find a better > > > > >> approach > > > > >> on > > > > >> solving those issues, we will change to it. > > > > >> And we will keep improving so don't be afraid that it will be > > > > >> enforced: > > > > >> if > > > > >> this does not work out we will discard it. > > > > >> > > > > >> P.S. > > > > >> Kudos to dcaro, most of the work was done by him, and most of this > > > > >> text > > > > >> too. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > +1 from me, releasing CI from running non critical and un-essential > > > > > jobs > > > > > will not only reduce load from ci, > > > > > and shorted response time for developers, it will allow us to add > > > > > much > > > > > more > > > > > powerful tests such as functional & system > > > > > tests that actually add hosts and run VMs, improving our ability to > > > > > find > > > > > regression much more effectively. > > > > > > > > > > Another benefit to consider is saving reviewers time. I.e not only > > > > > jenkins > > > > > benefits from Worklow+1, but also human reviewers. > > > > > Instead of looking at a patch that is too early to be reviewed, the > > > > > author > > > > > can set the Workflow+1 when the code is ready to review > > > > > (even if he didn't verified it yet), thus saving time to other > > > > > reviewers > > > > > - > > > > > for example people can add an email rule > > > > > to alert them only when they are added to patches that have > > > > > Workflow+1, > > > > > and > > > > > not before. > > > > > > > > For human reviewers I suggest to keep using drafts until the patch is > > > > finished. > > > > > > keep using? how many developers do you know are working with drafts > > > until > > > their patch is ready? > > > i agree if everyone would use drafts load on jenkins was already much > > > lower, > > > unfortunately its not the case. > > > > > > > IMO we don't need the "workflow" flag. > > I'm okay with CI not running on "drafts". And yes... we do use them. > > We can try and educate people to use them more where needed. > > Drafts should be widely used in first-phase development, and less on > > bug-fixes. > > > > In addition, I think the patch owners shouldn't add reviewers, unless > > they > > need their input in the stage of the development. > > Once they want input, they should add reviewers. > > > > 1. So, if the patch is draft then no CI runs on it. > > 2. Once it turns into non-draft, you can run "light-CI" on it. > > 3. Once the patch has at least one +1 from a (human) reviewer, then it > > should > > run the "heavy" CI. > > This is pointless, we will have to ask someone (or add another user) to +1 > the > patch to enable the CI :-) > > > 4. Once the patch has +1 from heavy CI, and +2 from reviewer > > (maintainer), > > then it can be merged. > > > > That's the process we have today, with slight change on when to run the > > CI > > and what CI to run (no CI on drafts, light CI on non-draft, heavy CI on > > +1 > > patches). > > I think Oved proposal is simpler and more useful. > > However, we need a way to run *any* ci jobs even on a draft. If we cannot > afford this automatically with current system, lets add a way to trigger > this > manually from gerrit. > > So this becomes simply: > > 1. drafts do not run the ci automatically, but the owner can run the ci > manually There are two ways I can think of such a trigger, through flags (that are easier to manage) or comments. The flags approach is the one that we exposed and tested on a few projects. > 2. published patches run the light ci jobs automatically, owner can run > heavy jobs manually A big issue here is that there's currently no separation between light and heavy jobs, not even a list of what should be considered as such. So for starters any job is considered to be heavy. > 3. run all ci jobs before merge, maintain can ignore ci results > > This works with the system David suggested in the past, where each project > implement scripts for checking patches and checking patches before merge. Both work with that system that was never implemented on any major project so far due to reluctance to add ci scripts inside the code base (where I strongly think they belong, as the code base evolves, the scripts must change with it) So this is not yet implemented everywhere.