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

From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Eli Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 9:52:15 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] gerrit+ci improvement proposal ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt;, infra(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 3:49:05 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] gerrit+ci improvement proposal > > > > ----- 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. > > 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). > > +1 > > This is he right approach to go (I am also using drafts and if other don't, > we can change that....) > Also, regarding the claim that publishing a draft is a one-way process, I > don't think that this is problematic, you should publish a draft after it > is > stable and you addressed all comments and run all tests locally > this might be true, but the problem is: 1. we can't enforce people to use drafts (technically), so until they do, we'll still have a resource problem

2. until we do, even "light ci" jobs running per patch will overload the ci without need, this is why relying on another flag will help - if adding workflow is a problem, we can use the CR+1 as first attempt to improve the flow, and consider in the future to use workflow if it will be needed. (maybe we can even set it automatically somehow)

> > > > > > > > > > Once it's finished and humans reviewed the logic of the patch, > > > > Workflow+1 > > > > should be triggered allowing automation to check the correctness of > > > > the > > > > patch. > > > > IMHO there's no reason for wasting CI time on patches that will be > > > > correct > > > > from an automation point of view but nacked by reviewers. Especially > > > > if > > > > the > > > > patches are part of a big patchset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And one final note, for Workflow+2 -> this is a preparation for a > > > > > gating > > > > > system, like Zuul used by openstack, that in the future > > > > > we might use as automatic merger pending passing a verification > > > > > step. > > > > > this > > > > > will prevent errors that happen sometimes > > > > > post merge due to conflicts or other issues, and will be another > > > > > level > > > > > of > > > > > validation before final merge. > > > > > But as max said, its all part of the plan and we'll test it of > > > > > course > > > > > before implementing to see its value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Max Kovgan > > > > >> > > > > >> Senior Software Engineer > > > > >> Red Hat - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D > > > > >> Tel.: +972 9769 2060 > > > > >> Email: mkovgan [at] redhat [dot] com > > > > >> Web: http://www.redhat.com > > > > >> RHT Global #: 82-72060 > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> Devel mailing list > > > > >> Devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Devel mailing list > > > > > Devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sandro Bonazzola > > > > Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community > > > > collaboration. > > > > See how it works at redhat.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Infra mailing list > > > > Infra(a)ovirt.org > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Devel mailing list > > > Devel(a)ovirt.org > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Infra mailing list > > Infra(a)ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra > > > _______________________________________________ > Infra mailing list > Infra(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra > > > _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra