From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; To: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 10:43:04 AM Subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag Hi! e have been having an issue with gerrit patches being merged before jenkins ran any tests on them, to avoid it from happening again I propose creating a new gerrit flag (Tests) with the following specifics: +1 - Tests passed/overrided 0 - Tests pending -1 - Tests broken where +1 is required to submit, +1 is set by jenkins when passing the tests and -1 is set by jenkins in case it breaks any tests. The +1 flag can be set also by maintainers to allow overriding the process. That way all the tests will be blocked until someone (hopefully jenkins) adds the +1 flag, but if the maintainer wants to override the value, she just has to set that flag herself. What do you think?

From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; To: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:43:04 AM Subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag Hi! e have been having an issue with gerrit patches being merged before jenkins ran any tests on them, to avoid it from happening again I propose creating a new gerrit flag (Tests) with the following specifics: +1 - Tests passed/overrided 0 - Tests pending -1 - Tests broken where +1 is required to submit, +1 is set by jenkins when passing the tests and -1 is set by jenkins in case it breaks any tests. The +1 flag can be set also by maintainers to allow overriding the process. That way all the tests will be blocked until someone (hopefully jenkins) adds the +1 flag, but if the maintainer wants to override the value, she just has to set that flag herself. What do you think? -- David Caro Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Tel.: +420 532 294 605 Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605 _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

From: "Yaniv Dary" <ydary(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 12:10:36 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: infra(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:52:11 AM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > What happens when rebasing? > We can't afford waiting for tests to run on each rebase... as we might end > up > rebasing forever. why can't you rerun tests after rebase to run tests if the patch is critical and pending?

> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:43:04 AM > > Subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > Hi! > > > > e have been having an issue with gerrit patches being merged before > > jenkins ran any tests on them, to avoid it from happening again I > > propose creating a new gerrit flag (Tests) with the following > > specifics: > > > > > > +1 - Tests passed/overrided > > 0 - Tests pending > > -1 - Tests broken > > > > where +1 is required to submit, +1 is set by jenkins when > > passing the tests and -1 is set by jenkins in case it breaks any > > tests. The +1 flag can be set also by maintainers to allow overriding > > the process. > > > > That way all the tests will be blocked until someone (hopefully > > jenkins) adds the +1 flag, but if the maintainer wants to override the > > value, she just has to set that flag herself. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > -- > > David Caro > > > > Red Hat S.L. > > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D > > > > Tel.: +420 532 294 605 > > Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com > > Web: www.redhat.com > > RHT Global #: 82-62605 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

What happens when rebasing? We can't afford waiting for tests to run on each rebase... as we might en=

=20 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:43:04 AM > Subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag >=20 > Hi! >=20 > e have been having an issue with gerrit patches being merged before > jenkins ran any tests on them, to avoid it from happening again I > propose creating a new gerrit flag (Tests) with the following > specifics: >=20 >=20 > +1 - Tests passed/overrided > 0 - Tests pending > -1 - Tests broken >=20 > where +1 is required to submit, +1 is set by jenkins when > passing the tests and -1 is set by jenkins in case it breaks any > tests. The +1 flag can be set also by maintainers to allow overriding > the process. >=20 > That way all the tests will be blocked until someone (hopefully > jenkins) adds the +1 flag, but if the maintainer wants to override the > value, she just has to set that flag herself. >=20 >=20 > What do you think? >=20 >=20 > -- > David Caro >=20 > Red Hat S.L. > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D >=20 > Tel.: +420 532 294 605 > Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com > Web: www.redhat.com > RHT Global #: 82-62605 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUhssDAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDlmAH/jTGLANAfsNTi8QkXiDHONor Ye6SDEmj4Wz77VvFEskba9GDvCjKYUs9yf1dCI+ETba4+ilvlu+M9foEe4x0bpK+ EeVrKUxHyAP+y0hKvUoK1IsNBboJtYLOQcnAjPKnTzgemzvNjhzG+GvUJCVbrmn0 o7Jd1WEE3uCnjEgOnP5V1M+7cP/w0w6pSNhoT0taAU+T3ftXLKBZWZHU5k/hLGwc qSzUYWJlYeW9JYDa4Z0vsaxFUHuppYzpZI37oo7AR6ZoBobs/P+Se7fXUPfscEX3 5cCsM6De/1qZkdfB53b93LYn7VKxGwFAtULFunw5tWshlNb0wtBrupFnkaxmHuA= =BxeC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: infra(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 12:12:19 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > What happens when rebasing? > We can't afford waiting for tests to run on each rebase... as we might end > up rebasing forever. For now we will have to, all the code that is going to be merged must be tested as it is going to be merged, that means running the tests in the last rebase too. In the future there are plans on using a gating system like zuul, so zuul will be the one monitoring the tests and merging when passes, so you will just add the flag, and that will trigger the gate, that runs the tests and merged the patch. It's unlikely that you'll have to wait forever, but there's nothing avoiding you doing that (right now even). I'd like to put emphasis again on differentiating between tests that are fast, that should run on each patch and tests that are slow, that should run on each merge. That will improve the feedback times.

> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:43:04 AM > > Subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > Hi! > > > > e have been having an issue with gerrit patches being merged before > > jenkins ran any tests on them, to avoid it from happening again I > > propose creating a new gerrit flag (Tests) with the following > > specifics: > > > > > > +1 - Tests passed/overrided > > 0 - Tests pending > > -1 - Tests broken > > > > where +1 is required to submit, +1 is set by jenkins when > > passing the tests and -1 is set by jenkins in case it breaks any > > tests. The +1 flag can be set also by maintainers to allow overriding > > the process. > > > > That way all the tests will be blocked until someone (hopefully > > jenkins) adds the +1 flag, but if the maintainer wants to override the > > value, she just has to set that flag herself. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > -- > > David Caro > > > > Red Hat S.L. > > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D > > > > Tel.: +420 532 294 605 > > Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com > > Web: www.redhat.com > > RHT Global #: 82-62605 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Devel mailing list > > Devel(a)ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- David Caro Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Tel.: +420 532 294 605 Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605 _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: infra(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 2:27:14 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag top posting: How about the following flow: 1. You push a patch to gerrit. 2. You need +1 on Testing in order to merge it. 3. You have +1/-1 on the Tests if finished successfully/failed 4. You find out you need to rebase. 5. The rebase copies the result of the Tests of the previous patch-set... if it was +1, it remains +1 and you can merge (assuming you have +2 on CR). If it was -1 then you need to wait for the CI to finish, and it might set it to +1. Does that make sense?

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 1:13:57 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: infra(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 12:12:19 PM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > What happens when rebasing? > > > We can't afford waiting for tests to run on each rebase... as we might > > > end > > > up rebasing forever. > > > > For now we will have to, all the code that is going to be merged must > > be tested as it is going to be merged, that means running the tests in > > the last rebase too. > > > > In the future there are plans on using a gating system like zuul, so > > zuul will be the one monitoring the tests and merging when passes, so > > you will just add the flag, and that will trigger the gate, that runs > > the tests and merged the patch. > > > > It's unlikely that you'll have to wait forever, but there's nothing > > avoiding you doing that (right now even). > > > > I'd like to put emphasis again on differentiating between tests that > > are fast, that should run on each patch and tests that are slow, that > > should run on each merge. That will improve the feedback times. > > > > So let's apply that in the future. > For now the amount of merges done is enormous, and it will be impossible to > get things merged on a reasonable time. > Again, I'm not against testing, but it should be done the right way... > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:43:04 AM > > > > Subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > e have been having an issue with gerrit patches being merged before > > > > jenkins ran any tests on them, to avoid it from happening again I > > > > propose creating a new gerrit flag (Tests) with the following > > > > specifics: > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 - Tests passed/overrided > > > > 0 - Tests pending > > > > -1 - Tests broken > > > > > > > > where +1 is required to submit, +1 is set by jenkins when > > > > passing the tests and -1 is set by jenkins in case it breaks any > > > > tests. The +1 flag can be set also by maintainers to allow overriding > > > > the process. > > > > > > > > That way all the tests will be blocked until someone (hopefully > > > > jenkins) adds the +1 flag, but if the maintainer wants to override > > > > the > > > > value, she just has to set that flag herself. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > David Caro > > > > > > > > Red Hat S.L. > > > > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D > > > > > > > > Tel.: +420 532 294 605 > > > > Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com > > > > Web: www.redhat.com > > > > RHT Global #: 82-62605 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Devel mailing list > > > > Devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > -- > > David Caro > > > > Red Hat S.L. > > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D > > > > Tel.: +420 532 294 605 > > Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com > > Web: www.redhat.com > > RHT Global #: 82-62605 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

=20 =20 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: infra(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 2:27:14 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag >=20 > top posting: > How about the following flow: > 1. You push a patch to gerrit. > 2. You need +1 on Testing in order to merge it. > 3. You have +1/-1 on the Tests if finished successfully/failed > 4. You find out you need to rebase. > 5. The rebase copies the result of the Tests of the previous patch-set.=

> it was +1, it remains +1 and you can merge (assuming you have +2 on CR)=

> it was -1 then you need to wait for the CI to finish, and it might set =

> +1. >=20 > Does that make sense? =20 Yes, but only if you used rebase button and automatic rebase worked. In case of merge conflict you will need to wait after rebase for tests.

=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 1:13:57 PM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > Cc: infra(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 12:12:19 PM > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > >=20 > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > What happens when rebasing? > > > > We can't afford waiting for tests to run on each rebase... as we =

> > > > end > > > > up rebasing forever. > > >=20 > > > For now we will have to, all the code that is going to be merged mu=

> > > be tested as it is going to be merged, that means running the tests=

> > > the last rebase too. > > >=20 > > > In the future there are plans on using a gating system like zuul, so > > > zuul will be the one monitoring the tests and merging when passes, =

> > > you will just add the flag, and that will trigger the gate, that ru=

> > > the tests and merged the patch. > > >=20 > > > It's unlikely that you'll have to wait forever, but there's nothing > > > avoiding you doing that (right now even). > > >=20 > > > I'd like to put emphasis again on differentiating between tests that > > > are fast, that should run on each patch and tests that are slow, th=

> > > should run on each merge. That will improve the feedback times. > > >=20 > >=20 > > So let's apply that in the future. > > For now the amount of merges done is enormous, and it will be impossi=

> > get things merged on a reasonable time. > > Again, I'm not against testing, but it should be done the right way... > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org, infra(a)ovirt.org > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:43:04 AM > > > > > Subject: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > >=20 > > > > > Hi! > > > > >=20 > > > > > e have been having an issue with gerrit patches being merged be=

> > > > > jenkins ran any tests on them, to avoid it from happening again=

> > > > > propose creating a new gerrit flag (Tests) with the following > > > > > specifics: > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > > +1 - Tests passed/overrided > > > > > 0 - Tests pending > > > > > -1 - Tests broken > > > > >=20 > > > > > where +1 is required to submit, +1 is set by jenkins when > > > > > passing the tests and -1 is set by jenkins in case it breaks any > > > > > tests. The +1 flag can be set also by maintainers to allow over=

> > > > > the process. > > > > >=20 > > > > > That way all the tests will be blocked until someone (hopefully > > > > > jenkins) adds the +1 flag, but if the maintainer wants to overr=

> > > > > the > > > > > value, she just has to set that flag herself. > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > > What do you think? > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > > -- > > > > > David Caro > > > > >=20 > > > > > Red Hat S.L. > > > > > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D > > > > >=20 > > > > > Tel.: +420 532 294 605 > > > > > Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com > > > > > Web: www.redhat.com > > > > > RHT Global #: 82-62605 > > > > >=20 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Devel mailing list > > > > > Devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > >=20 > > > -- > > > David Caro > > >=20 > > > Red Hat S.L. > > > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D > > >=20 > > > Tel.: +420 532 294 605 > > > Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com > > > Web: www.redhat.com > > > RHT Global #: 82-62605 > > >=20 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >=20

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUhu3LAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDdP0H/3RLp7CSIAP9HgffU/hBC/G2 wEZzBNIgaeeZ4wkjaPjN8tijl7iXX+/1f3CsIZNfrCEkl5b+gd9MZYsoczPGuXxX p8VuYM0Z/MgBNrz6b8p72wAGD3NuaK/UDnlbE7hsaYVb72t2SBBpYbFAvi6h/OWf GfteLxFI6NH3EF6j0u08wE2msM4270G6dh9D6h3nvUzyYAoNUaGFpZKlGGuKV9XC tcuH+i+GGyzg6QF8jBVgLDYKLi2ZYMhfKJpzTNXI8gkcAJp6HRgVi3TrIS5xNpp2 +f688J+oH4c+EZgV/DPu93r4f+OzHnhfK0BNjGX4G0HqYx8la4QN+f2GyaPdgKs= =Oqyk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

safe up to 95% or so.

=20 =20 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt; > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > safe up to 95% or so. >=20 > You just made up that number. > I don't really understand why you would want > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing tests. >=20 > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit? >=20 =20 It doesn't downgrade the code quality. It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge changes, and do it a=

The number is indeed invented... as I don't have real statistics, but it =

After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the responsibility of t=

=20 > -- > Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen / Regards >=20 > Sven Kieske >=20 > Systemadministrator > Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG > K=F6nigsberger Stra=DFe 6 > 32339 Espelkamp > T: +49-5772-293-100 > F: +49-5772-293-333 > https://www.mittwald.de > Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer: Robert Meyer > St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhau=

> Komplement=E4rin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeyn=

> _______________________________________________ > 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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUhvvOAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDWPAIAJyDu1Mc1ZDBWnCm0pk06/KB GgOWGpJTsNb3mQIt9PeATg8zlr0HIko+iF+I4RiKVzbFVp0ZkTvrUn/vK102x4MI CAGTu9twyWScQWEhgc8RqOOJpP8wcpkk/Bf5vXPZunACVWyzouzx0Bge2nJkaUSg ik8a+bax9MnaT45R6NmUmC3P8/Eaj2ktavR6ZQLsX+Nq7C5SUKAgb1hShV+ZIu89 HEEgfExXslserA8Wd1G9V5qxDHzz5P7MFrU1DK6bFzzoE4uyOYwd5SUoBHYHySdh qJ0np5o9EEwmffpgxvnIuT2J00M7bIBJzoQ9AYm6/hj1sfeuzIYap/wgS3buK6g= =+hXp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=20 =20 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag >=20 > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt; > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > safe up to 95% or so. > > >=20 > > > You just made up that number. > > > I don't really understand why you would want > > > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing tests. > > >=20 > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit? > > >=20 > >=20 > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality. > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge changes, and do =

> > safely as possible without relying on post-submit tools. > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't have real statistics, but=

> > comes to say that it would be safe most of the time. > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the responsibility =

> > developer to check that out and fix that. >=20 > This thread was started to avoid getting to that point, as getting a > failed patch inside the code means breaking all the other tests that > run on top of it and that blocks all the development, not only that > specific patch. >=20 =20 The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which there was a T=

My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored. In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of the tests issue,=

=20 =20 > >=20 > > > -- > > > Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen / Regards > > >=20 > > > Sven Kieske > > >=20 > > > Systemadministrator > > > Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG > > > K=F6nigsberger Stra=DFe 6 > > > 32339 Espelkamp > > > T: +49-5772-293-100 > > > F: +49-5772-293-333 > > > https://www.mittwald.de > > > Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer: Robert Meyer > > > St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad > > > Oeynhausen > > > Komplement=E4rin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad > > > Oeynhausen > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 >=20 > -- > David Caro >=20 > Red Hat S.L. > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D >=20 > Tel.: +420 532 294 605 > Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com > Web: www.redhat.com > RHT Global #: 82-62605 >=20

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUhys0AAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDrusIAJFzntcs1DEL85J2XT+avKrb FG9/LjSx+ZnFCleG6KxGXOYB6dngFIan1obc57IinhCp80WJLP2BCInbSbqKW6F7 Y/SHQEi/QZ1gELi649v72+ShGXGRVSkiud50CSPCEkZh8T2F7v5rhB2kVoYT3h5f gC4wcAIfy0QarMIs/rj5J7aC3AMjX8hqF5XgoKhW3Z71E1UxOA3TqiewXknKSGtS wCVHc0plE4hemS7ohp1uHxtJeFOgYJ33CzuCMPmnIiAmEmRwMk2dBSLdnrNJ8k/K ZRq2M9eTqnlRr15kg4qfmXQM1XGLoZ5jqlI5acEPE+/SUIgFLU+SoJoQ2GJer3U= =dybC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt; > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so. > > > > > > > > > > You just made up that number. > > > > > I don't really understand why you would want > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing tests. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality. > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge changes, and do > > > > it > > > > as > > > > safely as possible without relying on post-submit tools. > > > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't have real statistics, but > > > > it > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of the time. > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the responsibility > > > > of > > > > the > > > > developer to check that out and fix that. > > > > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that point, as getting a > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking all the other tests that > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the development, not only that > > > specific patch. > > > > > > > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which there was a > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored. > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored. > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of the tests issue, > > then you'll find about it later. > > I started the discussion, and I started it because a developer > complained about not being able to merge a patch because it was > failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was making all > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution to avoid getting > to that point where a patch is merged while breaking the tests. > > > So in summary, you are suggestion this: > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and -1 that only jenkins > and managers can set > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1 > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if the flag was > -1 >

And carry on also +1 in case of gerrit rebases. > That way if any of the previous patches failed any test you won't be > able to merge it unless a maintainer accepts or the tests pass. But if > your previous patchset passed, you will be able to merge right away. > > Is that correct? > > Just for comparison, right now anyone with submit privileges can > submit any patch rebasing and submitting before jenkins gives it's > review. I don't see a real advantage, as right now only maintainers > should be able to submit, so the people doing the submit already know > that the tests are failing and ignoring it, your solution will not > prevent them from keep ignoring them.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Regards > > > > > > > > > > Sven Kieske > > > > > > > > > > Systemadministrator > > > > > Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG > > > > > Königsberger Straße 6 > > > > > 32339 Espelkamp > > > > > T: +49-5772-293-100 > > > > > F: +49-5772-293-333 > > > > > https://www.mittwald.de > > > > > Geschäftsführer: Robert Meyer > > > > > St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad > > > > > Oeynhausen > > > > > Komplementärin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad > > > > > Oeynhausen > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > > David Caro > > > > > > Red Hat S.L. > > > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D > > > > > > Tel.: +420 532 294 605 > > > Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com > > > Web: www.redhat.com > > > RHT Global #: 82-62605 > > > > > -- > David Caro > > Red Hat S.L. > Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D > > Tel.: +420 532 294 605 > Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com > Web: www.redhat.com > RHT Global #: 82-62605 > > _______________________________________________ > 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

=20 =20 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt; > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag >=20 >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > >=20 > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > >=20 > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > >=20 > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt; > > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > You just made up that number. > > > > > > > I don't really understand why you would want > > > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing tests. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit? > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality. > > > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge changes,=

> > > > > > do > > > > > > it > > > > > > as > > > > > > safely as possible without relying on post-submit tools. > > > > > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't have real statist=

> > > > > > but > > > > > > it > > > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of the time. > > > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the > > > > > > responsibility > > > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > developer to check that out and fix that. > > > > >=20 > > > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that point, as gett=

> > > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking all the other tests=

> > > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the development, not only =

> > > > > specific patch. > > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which there=

> > > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored. > > > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored. > > > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of the tests > > > > issue, > > > > then you'll find about it later. > > >=20 > > > I started the discussion, and I started it because a developer > > > complained about not being able to merge a patch because it was > > > failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was making all > > > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution to avoid getti=

> > > to that point where a patch is merged while breaking the tests. > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > So in summary, you are suggestion this: > > >=20 > > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and -1 that only jen=

> > > and managers can set > > >=20 > > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1 > > >=20 > > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if the flag =

> > > -1 > > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > +1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even with a r=

> in gerrit. > going forward we're planning a few changes to the way jenkins jobs are =

> ovirt ci, which will help > reduce noise and imrove resources usages. >=20 > 1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit tests/chec=

> will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run > (integration/rpms/findbugs) =20 This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running "make check" will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower tests if a fast=

failed.

=20 Nir _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUiF/YAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnD7HcH+wRFNKrzqUS/JO7f5YQCZxu3 4U4D/gKyURIPI0ghdf8vmEWbBQq4wKanKaO533rPuu9ZhuJRNOLhHCBA+I7rVdvL eyGN4E0gidWDb5tBtp5PaoRauEs7tC5DGMH0ZzyskfrBZeyUUjtbbmsCnAM7noya gx4nQh7lbE0e28ZbOt2GonAPVVkoYvQ+msd8v9/pG7Hks+KkO+24BuTfPRecSl3c qslRw09jBJoTdIuO4irfVqtUO4engLckFu02Q3ID5Q+qsXscG+AGGSvSzOVLtr3V 1WXalQ1qNd15+MB0q6n4XgQamRzsANQ8glcuSIdWeR2b96xuwrjz1MZeiSwUXdE= =AbWb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:59:36 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag On 12/10, Nir Soffer wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt; > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt; > > > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You just made up that number. > > > > > > > > I don't really understand why you would want > > > > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality. > > > > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge changes, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > safely as possible without relying on post-submit tools. > > > > > > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't have real > > > > > > > statistics, > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of the time. > > > > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the > > > > > > > responsibility > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > developer to check that out and fix that. > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that point, as > > > > > > getting a > > > > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking all the other tests > > > > > > that > > > > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the development, not only > > > > > > that > > > > > > specific patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which there > > > > > was a > > > > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored. > > > > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored. > > > > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of the tests > > > > > issue, > > > > > then you'll find about it later. > > > > > > > > I started the discussion, and I started it because a developer > > > > complained about not being able to merge a patch because it was > > > > failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was making all > > > > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution to avoid getting > > > > to that point where a patch is merged while breaking the tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > So in summary, you are suggestion this: > > > > > > > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and -1 that only > > > > jenkins > > > > and managers can set > > > > > > > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1 > > > > > > > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if the flag > > > > was > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > > > > +1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even with a > > rebase > > in gerrit. > > going forward we're planning a few changes to the way jenkins jobs are > > run on > > ovirt ci, which will help > > reduce noise and imrove resources usages. > > > > 1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit > > tests/checkstyle > > will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run > > (integration/rpms/findbugs) > > This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running "make check" > will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower tests if a fast > test > failed. Please change to be able to run only fast tests or only slow tests, that way we can separate the job into two and give feedback about the fast tests before the slows have finished running.

From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:06:24 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag On 12/11, Nir Soffer wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, > > "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:59:36 PM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > On 12/10, Nir Soffer wrote: > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt; > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt; > > > > > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You just made up that number. > > > > > > > > > > I don't really understand why you would want > > > > > > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality. > > > > > > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge > > > > > > > > > changes, > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > safely as possible without relying on post-submit tools. > > > > > > > > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't have real > > > > > > > > > statistics, > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of the time. > > > > > > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the > > > > > > > > > responsibility > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > developer to check that out and fix that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that point, as > > > > > > > > getting a > > > > > > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking all the other > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the development, not > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > specific patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > was a > > > > > > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored. > > > > > > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored. > > > > > > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of the > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > issue, > > > > > > > then you'll find about it later. > > > > > > > > > > > > I started the discussion, and I started it because a developer > > > > > > complained about not being able to merge a patch because it was > > > > > > failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was making > > > > > > all > > > > > > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution to avoid > > > > > > getting > > > > > > to that point where a patch is merged while breaking the tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in summary, you are suggestion this: > > > > > > > > > > > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and -1 that only > > > > > > jenkins > > > > > > and managers can set > > > > > > > > > > > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if the > > > > > > flag > > > > > > was > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even with a > > > > rebase > > > > in gerrit. > > > > going forward we're planning a few changes to the way jenkins jobs > > > > are > > > > run on > > > > ovirt ci, which will help > > > > reduce noise and imrove resources usages. > > > > > > > > 1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit > > > > tests/checkstyle > > > > will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run > > > > (integration/rpms/findbugs) > > > > > > This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running "make > > > check" > > > will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower tests if a > > > fast > > > test > > > failed. > > > > Please change to be able to run only fast tests or only slow tests, > > that way we can separate the job into two and give feedback about the > > fast tests before the slows have finished running. > > These are the available targets (from faster to slower): > > - gitignore - check that certain files are ignored > > - pyflakes - check common Python errors (e.g. unused imports) > > - pep8 - style check > > - check - run the fast checks above and if successful, the unittests > > Environment variables: > > NOSE_SLOW_TESTS=1 - enable slow tests (we have only few) > NOSE_STRESS_TESTS=1 - enable stress tests (probably not useful for the > CI) > > Note that the environment variables are used only for the tests in > vdsm/tests there are few tests in various sub directories that do > not use the test infrastructure in vdsm/tests. > > - check-all - run make check enbaling both slow and stress tests > > Do you need a separate target for the unittests? I just want to be able to execute: > make fast-check for fast checks (you decide what are and what are not) > make slow-check for slow checks, non overlapping, meaning that if you want to runa ll the checks, you'll have to use fast and then slow. The idea is to generalize the interface we use for the tests between all the ovirt projects so from ci we don't have to go keeping specific scripts for each provect and for each project version. And be able to run the fast checks (on each patchset, merges included) and the slow ones (on each merge only) separated so we can give feedback faster and not start the slow ones. Then after that goes the building of the rpm, and then the functional tests. And last the release if relevant. On patch: fast_check

On merge: fast_check -> slow_check -> build -> functional_check -> release

That flow is generic for all the projects, so each project will have to implement the same interface to run each step (I don't really care if it's make fast-check or just a bash script that runs whatever you need underneath, the key is not having to specify any options if possible and running just one line, the same everywhere).

That simplifies a LOT the maintenance of the jenkins jobs, and allows to change the way checks are run bound to the version of the product.

From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org, "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:22:01 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag On 12/11, Nir Soffer wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, > > "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:06:24 PM > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > On 12/11, Nir Soffer wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > Cc: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Oved Ourfali" > > > > <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, > > > > "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:59:36 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > On 12/10, Nir Soffer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > > Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt; > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:30 AM > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > > > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:02:44 PM > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:40:30 PM > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/09, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske(a)mittwald.de&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:21:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/12/14 13:47, Oved Ourfali wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > safe up to 95% or so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You just made up that number. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't really understand why you would want > > > > > > > > > > > > to downgrade your code quality by circumventing > > > > > > > > > > > > tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe someone can elaborate on this a bit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't downgrade the code quality. > > > > > > > > > > > It is just a way to ensure developers can both merge > > > > > > > > > > > changes, > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > safely as possible without relying on post-submit > > > > > > > > > > > tools. > > > > > > > > > > > The number is indeed invented... as I don't have real > > > > > > > > > > > statistics, > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > comes to say that it would be safe most of the time. > > > > > > > > > > > After the patch is merged, if CI will fail, it is the > > > > > > > > > > > responsibility > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > developer to check that out and fix that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This thread was started to avoid getting to that point, > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > getting a > > > > > > > > > > failed patch inside the code means breaking all the other > > > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > run on top of it and that blocks all the development, not > > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > specific patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue that started the discussion was an issue in which > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > was a > > > > > > > > > Tests "-1" flag, and it was ignored. > > > > > > > > > My suggestion will enforce that it won't be ignored. > > > > > > > > > In more rare cases, in which the rebase is the source of > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > issue, > > > > > > > > > then you'll find about it later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I started the discussion, and I started it because a > > > > > > > > developer > > > > > > > > complained about not being able to merge a patch because it > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > failing the tests due to an already merged patch that was > > > > > > > > making > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > the builds to fail. And was trying to get a solution to avoid > > > > > > > > getting > > > > > > > > to that point where a patch is merged while breaking the > > > > > > > > tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in summary, you are suggestion this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creating a new flag 'tested' with values +1, 0 and -1 that > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > jenkins > > > > > > > > and managers can set > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Block form submitting any patches that have a -1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carry the value of that flag to following patches only if the > > > > > > > > flag > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, we need a way to block bad patches from being merged, even > > > > > > with a > > > > > > rebase > > > > > > in gerrit. > > > > > > going forward we're planning a few changes to the way jenkins > > > > > > jobs > > > > > > are > > > > > > run on > > > > > > ovirt ci, which will help > > > > > > reduce noise and imrove resources usages. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. moving into a flow process, where critical jobs like unit > > > > > > tests/checkstyle > > > > > > will run first and only then other heavy jobs will run > > > > > > (integration/rpms/findbugs) > > > > > > > > > > This is already implemented in vdsm for few months - running "make > > > > > check" > > > > > will run the fast tests first and will not run the slower tests if > > > > > a > > > > > fast > > > > > test > > > > > failed. > > > > > > > > Please change to be able to run only fast tests or only slow tests, > > > > that way we can separate the job into two and give feedback about the > > > > fast tests before the slows have finished running. > > > > > > These are the available targets (from faster to slower): > > > > > > - gitignore - check that certain files are ignored > > > > > > - pyflakes - check common Python errors (e.g. unused imports) > > > > > > - pep8 - style check > > > > > > - check - run the fast checks above and if successful, the unittests > > > > > > Environment variables: > > > > > > NOSE_SLOW_TESTS=1 - enable slow tests (we have only few) > > > NOSE_STRESS_TESTS=1 - enable stress tests (probably not useful for > > > the > > > CI) > > > > > > Note that the environment variables are used only for the tests in > > > vdsm/tests there are few tests in various sub directories that do > > > not use the test infrastructure in vdsm/tests. > > > > > > - check-all - run make check enbaling both slow and stress tests > > > > > > Do you need a separate target for the unittests? > > > > I just want to be able to execute: > > > > > make fast-check > > > > for fast checks (you decide what are and what are not) > > > > > make slow-check > > > > for slow checks, non overlapping, meaning that if you want to runa ll > > the checks, you'll have to use fast and then slow. > > > > The idea is to generalize the interface we use for the tests between > > all the ovirt projects so from ci we don't have to go keeping specific > > scripts for each provect and for each project version. And be able to > > run the fast checks (on each patchset, merges included) and the slow > > ones (on each merge only) separated so we can give feedback faster and > > not start the slow ones. Then after that goes the building of the rpm, > > and then the functional tests. And last the release if relevant. > > > > On patch: > > fast_check > > fast_check is not a good name - how about check-patch? That name is just a placeholder for the step where you run the fast checks, however you do it is not specified here. > > > > > On merge: > > fast_check -> slow_check -> build -> functional_check -> release > > Same: how about check-merge? > > > > > That flow is generic for all the projects, so each project will have > > to implement the same interface to run each step (I don't really care > > if it's make fast-check or just a bash script that runs whatever you > > need underneath, the key is not having to specify any options if > > possible and running just one line, the same everywhere). > > These target do not make any sense out of the CI environment. And that's part of the development process, as much as creating unit tests. I think that's the point that is creating all the fuss around this. For you CI is external to the development. > > I think you should implement these using a wrapper, adapting any > project the the CI "interface". I totally disagree, because that 'adapter' is bound to a project and to a version, making it a perfect fit to have it inside the project code, changing it at the same time you change the code and adapting it to the code changes while they are made. Writing that adapter external to the project itself means that you have one adapter per project, and per project version, so doing some number, we have right now >50 projects so that would mean having to monitor all the 50 projects for each patch, and create a new adapet each time a change is made that modifies the way it runs the tests or the dependencies it needs. And bind that to that specific hash (and future ones). Compare that to having the 'adapter' inside the project, where you modify it on the same commit you change the way it builds or the dependencies, and just using that. If on the first step you need a team with 10% (random number) of the developers creating patches to keep up the pace, with the last you don't need anyone doing that job and you'll get no false failure and you'll have no 'adaptation' period where the code running does not have the correct deps or tests.

> We can provide the building blocks using the makefile, so the CI > can use them to build the required flow. I don't really care what tools to use, I just want the interface implemented. If you decide to use a bash script ok for me, if it's a make targe, ok for ma, if its a perl script, ruby script, python script or anything else, ok for me too. Just the same everywhere.

> > That simplifies a LOT the maintenance of the jenkins jobs, and allows > > to change the way checks are run bound to the version of the product. > > Since each version may have different makefile, the CI wrapper must > handle this. Totally disagree. Not implementing this means that the job will fail each time the code changes (because you can't maintain as many job versions as code changes in parallel and select each of them depending on the commit hash or whatever). This is a blocker to automate any CI and to keep a stable CI. If this is not done the stability will keep being low (because each dependency or version change will mean that the jobs fail, just like they are failing due to ioprocess or as they failed with pthread or pep8). And the maintenance will be very high, just like it is right now, requiring puppet and job changes each time a new dependency is needed and doing tricks and malabars when versions conflict, just like we do now, what enforces us to use specialized slaves and not being able to take advantage of all the resources we have.