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

[Niels de Vos]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 03:46:02PM +0530, Kaushal M wrote:
> 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.

Might need a restart/reload of Gerrit? It seems required for the main
gerrit.config file too:

  http://review.gluster.org/Documentation/config-gerrit.html#_file_code_etc_gerrit_config_code

Niels
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20160114/af59f58e/attachment.sig>