From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:15:54 +0100 Message-ID: <565B872A.2050700@dachary.org> References: <5659CE92.4000203@dachary.org> <565B5F4C.30308@dachary.org> <565B6D3F.5080109@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1kiQ6fIBn7b0MLGv4c7u7U23evf8mWtnk" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:41103 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751203AbbK2XP4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2015 18:15:56 -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) --1kiQ6fIBn7b0MLGv4c7u7U23evf8mWtnk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 29/11/2015 23:55, John Spray wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote:= >> >> >> On 29/11/2015 21:47, John Spray wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrot= e: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29/11/2015 21:08, John Spray wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Loic Dachary wr= ote: >>>>>> Hi Ceph, >>>>>> >>>>>> An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message li= ke so: >>>>>> >>>>>> teuthology: --suite rbd >>>>>> >>>>>> to state that this commit should be tested with the rbd suite. It = could be parsed by bots and humans. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would make it easy and cost effective to run partial teuthology= suites automatically on pull requests. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think ? >>>>> >>>>> Hmm, we are usually testing things at the branch/PR level rather th= an >>>>> on the per-commit level, so it feels a bit strange to have this in = the >>>>> commit message. >>>> >>>> Indeed. But what is a branch if not the HEAD commit ? >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> It's not necessarily a problem, just something that would need to hav= e >>> 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 t= est a PR by scheduling suites on its HEAD. But maybe you sometime schedul= e suites using a commit that's in the middle of a PR ? >=20 > I think I've made this too complicated... >=20 > What I meant was that while one would schedule suites against the HEAD > of the PR, that might not be the same commit that has the logical > testing information in. For example, I might have main commit that > has the "Fixes: " and "teuthology: " tags, and then a second commit > (that would be HEAD) which e.g. tweaks a unit test. It would be weird > if I had to put the teuthology: tag on the unit test commit rather > than the functional test, so I guess it would make sense to look at > the teuthology: tags from all the commits in a PR when scheduling it. Thanks for explaining, it's cristal clear.=20 My initial idea of having a teuthology: tag on the top level commit was i= ndeed naive and wrong. And looking through all commits and scheduling the= suites found on the HEAD as you suggest reflect what we manually do and = sound right :-)=20 Cheers --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --1kiQ6fIBn7b0MLGv4c7u7U23evf8mWtnk 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) iEYEARECAAYFAlZbhyoACgkQ8dLMyEl6F20rxQCfZU1ZRbWShiidbnHZyPHkXvtq SPkAn3dFD0Ud1+EL7DU4gTkZBph5hxj9 =fhp4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1kiQ6fIBn7b0MLGv4c7u7U23evf8mWtnk--