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

[Raghavendra Talur]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:26:46PM +0530, Kaushal M wrote:
> > I'd pushed the config to a new branch instead of updating the
> > `refs/meta/config` branch. I've corrected this now.
> >
> > The 3 new labels are,
> > - Smoke
> > - CentOS-regression
> > - NetBSD-regression
> >
> > The new labels are active now. Changes cannot be merged without all of
> > them being +1. Only the bot accounts (Gluster Build System and NetBSD
> > Build System) can set them.
>

Thanks Kaushal !


>
> It seems that Verified is also a label that is required. Because this is
> now the label for manual testing by reviewers/qa, I do not think it
> should be a requirement anymore.
>
> Could the labels that are needed for merging be setup like this?
>
>   Code-Review=+2 && (Verified=+1 || (Smoke=+1 && CentOS-regression=+1 &&
> NetBSD-regression=+1))
>

I would prefer not having Verified=+1 here. A dev should not be allowed to
override the restrictions.


>
> I managed to get http://review.gluster.org/13208 merged now, please
> check if the added tags in the commit message are ok, or need to get
> modified.
>
> Thanks,
> Niels
>
>
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Kaushal M <kshlmster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > >> 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
> > >
> > > I was using Chromium and did a restart. Both hadn't helped. I'll try
> again.
> > >>
> > >> Niels
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20160118/52b904b1/attachment.html>