[Gluster-Maintainers] Requesting separate labels in Gerrit for better testing results

[Kaushal M]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:51:15AM +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Atin Mukherjee <atin.mukherjee83 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > -Atin
>> > Sent from one plus one
>> > On Jan 12, 2016 7:41 PM, "Niels de Vos" <ndevos at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:21:37PM +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote:
>> > > > We have now changed the gerrit-jenkins workflow as follows:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. Developer works on a new feature/bug fix and tests it locally(run
>> > > > run-tests.sh completely).
>> > > > 2. Developer sends the patch to gerrit using rfc.sh.
>> > > >
>> > > > +++Note that no regression runs have started automatically for this
>> > patch
>> > > > at this point.+++
>> > > >
>> > > > 3. Developer marks the patch as +1 verified on gerrit as a promise of
>> > > > having tested the patch completely. For cases where patches don't have
>> > a +1
>> > > > verified from the developer, maintainer has the following options
>> > > > a. just do the code-review and award a +2 code review.
>> > > > b. pull the patch locally and test completely and award a +1 verified.
>> > > > Both the above actions would result in triggering of regression runs
>> > for
>> > > > the patch.
>> > >
>> > > Would it not help if anyone giving +1 code-review starts the regression
>> > > tests too? When developers ask me to review, I prefer to see reviews
>> > > done by others first, and any regression failures should have been fixed
>> > > by the time I look at the change.
>> > When this idea was originated (long back) I was in favour of having
>> > regression triggered on a +1, however verified flag set by the developer
>> > would still trigger the regression. Being a maintainer I would always
>> > prefer to look at a patch when its verified  flag is +1 which means the
>> > regression result would also be available.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Niels requested in IRC that it is good have a mechanism of getting all
>> patches that have already passed all regressions before starting review.
>> Here is what I found
>> a. You can use the search string
>> status:open label:Verified+1,user=build AND label:Verified+1,user=nb7build
>> b. You can bookmark this link and it will take you directly to the page
>> with list of such patches.
>>
>> http://review.gluster.org/#/q/status:open+label:Verified%252B1%252Cuser%253Dbuild+AND+label:Verified%252B1%252Cuser%253Dnb7build
>
> Hmm, copy/pasting this URL does not work for me, I get an error:
>
>     Code Review - Error
>     line 1:26 no viable alternative at character '%'
>     [Continue]
>
>
> Kaushal, could you add the following labels to gerrit, so that we can
> update the Jenkins jobs and they can start setting their own labels?
>
> http://review.gluster.org/Documentation/config-labels.html#label_custom
>
> - Smoke: misc smoke testing, compile, bug check, posix, ..
> - NetBSD: NetBSD-7 regression
> - Linux: Linux regression on CentOS-6

I added these labels to the gluster projects' project.config, but they
don't seem to be showing up. I'll check once more when I get back
home.

>
> Users/developers should not be able to set these labels, only the
> Jenkins accounts are allowed to.
>
> The standard Verified label can then be used for manual verification by
> developers, qa and reviewers.
>
> Thanks,
> Niels