[ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag

Wed Dec 10 14:59:36 UTC 2014

On 12/10, Nir Soffer wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eyal Edri" <eedri at redhat.com>
> > To: devel at ovirt.org
> > Cc: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo at redhat.com>, "infra" <infra at ovirt.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Creating a new gerrit flag
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo at redhat.com>
> > > To: "David Caro" <dcaroest at redhat.com>
> > > Cc: devel at 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 at redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo at redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: devel at 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 at redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: "Oved Ourfali" <ovedo at redhat.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "Sven Kieske" <s.kieske at mittwald.de>, devel at 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 at mittwald.de>
> > > > > > > > To: devel at 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.

Actually what eyal is talking about is not inside the project flow,
but jenkins build pipeline. Thar ranges from static checks, unit
tests, functional tests, builds and deployments (in the future).

So instead of having one job for each step and running all of them in
parallel, you'll run in a hierarchical manner, to avoid having to wat
for all the tests to get feedback or failing before starting the most
complex long-running tests.

> 
> Nir
> _______________________________________________
> Infra mailing list
> Infra at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra

-- 
David Caro

Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D

Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro at redhat.com
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20141210/55ccc19e/attachment-0001.sig>