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

[Raghavendra Talur]

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]
>

Firefox bug, Works for me in chrome
Here is the proof
https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=3641
https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=3582



>
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20160114/c9114c33/attachment.html>