From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 22:25:19 +0100 Message-ID: <565B6D3F.5080109@dachary.org> References: <5659CE92.4000203@dachary.org> <565B5F4C.30308@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ueRCH6oRPGjJK2h6AJwA8qPwc67CjWPR2" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:41078 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752353AbbK2VZW (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2015 16:25:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: John Spray Cc: Ceph Development This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --ueRCH6oRPGjJK2h6AJwA8qPwc67CjWPR2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 29/11/2015 21:47, John Spray wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:= >> >> >> On 29/11/2015 21:08, John Spray wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Loic Dachary wrot= e: >>>> Hi Ceph, >>>> >>>> An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message like= so: >>>> >>>> teuthology: --suite rbd >>>> >>>> to state that this commit should be tested with the rbd suite. It co= uld be parsed by bots and humans. >>>> >>>> It would make it easy and cost effective to run partial teuthology s= uites automatically on pull requests. >>>> >>>> What do you think ? >>> >>> Hmm, we are usually testing things at the branch/PR level rather than= >>> on the per-commit level, so it feels a bit strange to have this in th= e >>> commit message. >> >> Indeed. But what is a branch if not the HEAD commit ? >=20 > It's the HEAD commit, and its ancestors. So in a typical PR (or > branch) there are several commits since the base (i.e. since master), > and perhaps only one of them has a test suite marked on it, or maybe > they have different test suites marked on different commits in the > branch. >=20 > It's not necessarily a problem, just something that would need to have > a defined behaviour (maybe when testing a PR collect the "teuthology:" > tags from all commits in PR, and run all the suites mentioned?). That's an interesting idea :-) My understanding is that we currently test= a PR by scheduling suites on its HEAD. But maybe you sometime schedule s= uites using a commit that's in the middle of a PR ? Cheers >> >>> However, if a system existed that would auto-test things when I put >>> something magic in a commit message, I would probably use it! >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >>>> >> >> -- >> Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >> --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --ueRCH6oRPGjJK2h6AJwA8qPwc67CjWPR2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlZbbUAACgkQ8dLMyEl6F23FlACgs52IpjOCtexnzGyW20P6eIm8 VscAnAsCnz3OHXibzj4zpj4KI1eLYLJs =7+Db -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ueRCH6oRPGjJK2h6AJwA8qPwc67CjWPR2--