Re: Contributing ARM tests results to KCIDB

["Nikolai Kondrashov" <Nikolai.Kondrashov@redhat.com>]

On 12/2/20 2:01 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>  From POV of KCIDB, what you're sending now is overwriting the same test runs
 >> over and over, and we can't really tell which one of those objects is the
 >> final version.
 >
 >
 > Ah, that was exactly what I used to do in my first initial experiments and then,
 > looking at the data on the UI, I was dumb enough to decide that I should have got
 > it wrong and I started using the test_id instead of the test_execution_id, because
 > I thought that, anyway, you can recognize the different test executions of the
 > same test_id looking at the different build_id is part of (which for us represent
 > the different test suite runs)....but I suppose this wrong assumption of mine
 > sparked from the relational data model I use on our side. I'll fix it.

Yes, that would work, but then we get a "foreign key explosion" as we start
linking to tests from other objects beside builds. So, for now we're sticking
to the "one ID column per table" policy.

Thanks for bearing with us, and am glad to hear you already have
`test_execution_id` in your database, so the fix shouldn't take long :)

 > Sure, in fact, as of now I still have to ask for some changes in our reporting
 > backend, (which generates the original data stored in our DB and then pushed
 > to you), so I have to admit the git commit hash are partially faked (since I
 > have only a git describe string to start from) and as a consequence they won't
 > really be so much useful for comparisons amongst different origins (given
 > they don't refer real kernel commits), BUT I thought this NOT to be a
 > blocking problem for now, so that I can start pushing data to KCIDB and
 > then later on (once I get real full hashes on my side) I'll start pushing the
 > real valid ones, does it sounds good ?

Yes, no problem. We don't have maintainers/developers to get angry yet :D

I'm looking forward to having four-origin revisions in the dashboard, though,
one more than e.g. this one:

     https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/d/revision/revision?var-id=3650b228f83adda7e5ee532e2b90429c03f7b9ec

 > Side question...for dynamic schema validation purposes...is there any URL
 > where I can fetch the latest currently valid schema ... something like:
 >
 > https://github.com/kernelci/kcidb/releases/kcidb.latest.schema.json
 >
 > so that I can check automatically against the latest greatest instead of
 > using a builtin predownloaded one (or is it a bad idea in your opinion ?)

The JSON schemas we generate with `kcidb-schema`, and use inside KCIDB, only
validate *one* major version. So v3 data would only validate with v3 schema,
but not with e.g. v4.

So if you e.g. download and validate against the latest-release schema
automatically, validation will start failing the moment a release with v4
comes out.

Automatic data upgrades between major versions are done in Python whenever we
see a difference between the numbers.

OTOH, minor version bumps of the schema are backwards-compatible, and you
would be fine upgrading validation to those. However, we don't have many of
those at all yet, as we're still changing the schema a lot.

So, I think a reasonable workflow right now is to download and switch to a new
version at the same time you're upgrading your submission code to the next
major release of the schema. You'll need more work on the code than just
switching the schema, anyway.

However, let's get back to this further along the way, perhaps we can think of
something smoother and more automated. E.g. set up a way to have automatic
upgrades between minor versions.

Thanks :)
Nick

On 12/2/20 2:01 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 12:16:10PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
 >> On 12/2/20 11:23 AM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 10:05:05AM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov via groups.io wrote:
 >>>> On 11/5/20 8:46 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>>>> after past month few experiments on ARM KCIDB submissions against your
 >>>>> KCIDB staging instance , I was dragged a bit away from this by other stuff
 >>>>> before effectively deploying some real automation on our side to push our
 >>>>> daily results to KCIDB...now I'm back at it and I'll keep on testing
 >>>>> some automation on our side for a bit against your KCIDB staging instance
 >>>>> before asking you to move to production eventually.
 >>>>
 >>>> I see your data has been steadily trickling into our playground database and
 >>>> it looks quite good. Would you like to move to the production instance?
 >>>>
 >>>> I can review your data for you, we can fix the remaining issues if we find
 >>>> them, and I can give you the permissions to push to production. Then you will
 >>>> only need to change the topic you push to from "playground_kernelci_new" to
 >>>> "kernelci_new".
 >>>
 >>> In fact I left one staging instance on our side to push data on your
 >>> staging instance to verify remaining issues on our side *and there are a
 >>> couple of minor ones I spotted that I'd like to fix indeed);
 >>
 >> Sure, it's up to you when you decide to switch. However, if you'd like, list
 >> your issues here, and I would be able to tell you if those are important from
 >> KCIDB POV.
 >>
 >> Looking at your data, I can only find one serious issue: the test run ("test")
 >> IDs are not unique. E.g. there are 1460 objects with ID "arm:LTP:11" which
 >> use 643 distinct build_id's among them.
 >>
 >> The test run IDs should correspond to a single execution of a test. Otherwise
 >> we won't be able to tell them apart. You can send multiple reports containing
 >> test runs ("tests") with the same ID, but that would still mean the same
 >> execution, only repeating the same data, or adding more.
 >>
 >> A little more explanation:
 >> https://github.com/kernelci/kcidb/blob/master/SUBMISSION_HOWTO.md#submitting-objects-multiple-times
 >>
 >>  From POV of KCIDB, what you're sending now is overwriting the same test runs
 >> over and over, and we can't really tell which one of those objects is the
 >> final version.
 >
 >
 > Ah, that was exactly what I used to do in my first initial experiments and then,
 > looking at the data on the UI, I was dumb enough to decide that I should have got
 > it wrong and I started using the test_id instead of the test_execution_id, because
 > I thought that, anyway, you can recognize the different test executions of the
 > same test_id looking at the different build_id is part of (which for us represent
 > the different test suite runs)....but I suppose this wrong assumption of mine
 > sparked from the relational data model I use on our side. I'll fix it.
 >
 >>
 >> Aside from that, you might want to add `"valid": true` to your "revision"
 >> objects to indicate they're alright. You never seem to send patched revisions,
 >> so it should always be true for you. Then instead of the blank "Status" field:
 >>
 >>      https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/d/revision/revision?orgId=1&var-dataset=playground_kernelci04&var-id=f0d5c8f71bbb1aa1e98cb1a89adb9d57c04ede3d
 >>
 >> you would get a nice green check mark, like this:
 >>
 >>      https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/d/revision/revision?orgId=1&var-dataset=kernelci04&var-id=8af5fe40bd59d8aa26dd76d9971435177aacbfce
 >>
 >
 > Ah I missed this valid flag on revision too, I'll fix.
 >
 >> Finally, at this stage we really need a breadth of data coming from
 >> different CI system, rather than its depth or precision, so we can understand
 >> the problem at hand better and faster. It would do us no good to concentrate
 >> on just a few, and solidify the design around them. That would make it more
 >> difficult for others to join.
 >>
 >> You can refine and add more data afterwards.
 >>
 >
 > Sure, in fact, as of now I still have to ask for some changes in our reporting
 > backend, (which generates the original data stored in our DB and then pushed
 > to you), so I have to admit the git commit hash are partially faked (since I
 > have only a git describe string to start from) and as a consequence they won't
 > really be so much useful for comparisons amongst different origins (given
 > they don't refer real kernel commits), BUT I thought this NOT to be a
 > blocking problem for now, so that I can start pushing data to KCIDB and
 > then later on (once I get real full hashes on my side) I'll start pushing the
 > real valid ones, does it sounds good ?
 >
 >
 >>> moreover I saw a little while a go that you're going to switch to schema v4
 >>> with some minor changes in revisions and commit_hashes so I wanted to
 >>> conform to that once it's published (even though you're back compatible with
 >>> v3 AFAIU)....
 >>
 >> I would rather you didn't wait for that, as I'm neck deep in research for the
 >> next release right now, and it doesn't seem like it's gonna come out soon.
 >> I'm concentrating on getting our result notifications in a good shape so we
 >> can reach actual kernel developers ASAP.
 >>
 >> We can work on upgrading your setup later, when it comes out. And there are
 >> going to be other changes, anyway. So, I'd rather we released early and
 >> iterated.
 >>
 >
 > Good I'l stick to v3.
 >
 > Side question...for dynamic schema validation purposes...is there any URL
 > where I can fetch the latest currently valid schema ... something like:
 >
 > https://github.com/kernelci/kcidb/releases/kcidb.latest.schema.json
 >
 > so that I can check automatically against the latest greatest instead of
 > using a builtin predownloaded one (or is it a bad idea in your opinion ?)
 >
 >>> ... then I've got dragged away again from this past week :D
 >>>
 >>> In fact my next steps (possibly next week) would have been (beside my fixes)
 >>> to ask you how to proceed further to production KCIDB.
 >>
 >> There's never enough time for everything :)
 >>
 >
 > eh..
 >
 >>> Would you want me to stop flooding your staging instance in the meantime (:D)
 >>> till I'm back at it at least , I think I have enugh data now to debug anyway.
 >>> (I could made a few more check next week though)
 >>
 >> Don't worry about that, and keep pushing, maybe you'll manage to break it
 >> again and then we can fix it :)
 >>
 >
 > Fine :D
 >
 >>> If it's just a matter of switching project (once got enhanced permissions
 >>> from you) please do it, and I'll try to finalize all next week on our
 >>> side and move to production.
 >>
 >> Permission granted! Switch when you feel ready, and don't hesitate to ping me
 >> for another review, if you need it.
 >>
 >> Just replace "playground_kernelci_new" topic with "kernelci_new" in your
 >> setup when you're ready.
 >>
 >
 > Cool, thanks.
 >
 >>> Thanks for the patience
 >>
 >> Thank you for your effort, we need your data :D
 >>
 >> Nick
 >>
 >
 > Thank you Nick
 >
 > Cheers,
 >
 > Cristian
 >
 >
 >> On 12/2/20 11:23 AM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>> Hi Nick
 >>>
 >>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 10:05:05AM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov via groups.io wrote:
 >>>> Hi Cristian,
 >>>>
 >>>> On 11/5/20 8:46 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>>>> Hi Nick,
 >>>>>
 >>>>> after past month few experiments on ARM KCIDB submissions against your
 >>>>> KCIDB staging instance , I was dragged a bit away from this by other stuff
 >>>>> before effectively deploying some real automation on our side to push our
 >>>>> daily results to KCIDB...now I'm back at it and I'll keep on testing
 >>>>> some automation on our side for a bit against your KCIDB staging instance
 >>>>> before asking you to move to production eventually.
 >>>>
 >>>> I see your data has been steadily trickling into our playground database and
 >>>> it looks quite good. Would you like to move to the production instance?
 >>>>
 >>>> I can review your data for you, we can fix the remaining issues if we find
 >>>> them, and I can give you the permissions to push to production. Then you will
 >>>> only need to change the topic you push to from "playground_kernelci_new" to
 >>>> "kernelci_new".
 >>>
 >>> In fact I left one staging instance on our side to push data on your
 >>> staging instance to verify remaining issues on our side *and there are a
 >>> couple of minor ones I spotted that I'd like to fix indeed); moreover I saw
 >>> a little while a go that you're going to switch to schema v4 with some minor
 >>> changes in revisions and commit_hashes so I wanted to conform to that once
 >>> it's published (even though you're back compatible with v3 AFAIU)....
 >>>
 >>> ... then I've got dragged away again from this past week :D
 >>>
 >>> In fact my next steps (possibly next week) would have been (beside my fixes)
 >>> to ask you how to proceed further to production KCIDB.
 >>>
 >>> Would you want me to stop flooding your staging instance in the meantime (:D)
 >>> till I'm back at it at least , I think I have enugh data now to debug anyway.
 >>> (I could made a few more check next week though)
 >>>
 >>> If it's just a matter of switching project (once got enhanced permissions
 >>> from you) please do it, and I'll try to finalize all next week on our
 >>> side and move to production.
 >>>
 >>> Thanks for the patience
 >>>
 >>> Cristian
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>>
 >>>> Nick
 >>>>
 >>>> On 11/5/20 8:46 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>>>> Hi Nick,
 >>>>>
 >>>>> after past month few experiments on ARM KCIDB submissions against your
 >>>>> KCIDB staging instance , I was dragged a bit away from this by other stuff
 >>>>> before effectively deploying some real automation on our side to push our
 >>>>> daily results to KCIDB...now I'm back at it and I'll keep on testing
 >>>>> some automation on our side for a bit against your KCIDB staging instance
 >>>>> before asking you to move to production eventually.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> But, today I realized, though, that I cannot push anymore data successfully
 >>>>> into staging even using the same test script I used one month ago to push
 >>>>> some new test data seems to fail now (I tested a few different days and
 >>>>> JSON validates fine with jsonschema...with proper dates with hours...)...
 >>>>> ...I cannot see any of my today tests' pushes on:
 >>>>>
 >>>>> https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/d/home/home?orgId=1&from=now-1y&to=now&refresh=30m&var-origin=arm&var-git_repository_url=All&var-dataset=playground_kernelci04
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Auth seems to proceed fine, but I cannot find any submission dated after
 >>>>> the old ~15/18-09-2020 submissions. I'm using the same kci-submit tools
 >>>>> version installed past months from your github though.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Do you see any errors on your side that can shed a light on this ?
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Thanks
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Regards
 >>>>>
 >>>>> Cristian
 >>>>>
 >>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 05:42:28PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>>>>> Hi Nick,
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 06:53:28PM +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
 >>>>>>> On 9/18/20 6:30 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
 >>>>>>>> Yes, I think it's one of the problems you uncovered :)
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> The schema allows for fully-compliant RFC3339 timestamps, but the BigQuery
 >>>>>>>> database on the backend doesn't understand some of them. In particular it
 >>>>>>>> doesn't understand the date-only timestamps you send. E.g. "2020-09-13".
 >>>>>>>> That's what I wanted to fix today, but ran out of time.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> Looking at this more it seems that Python's jsonschema module simply doesn't
 >>>>>>> enforce the requirements we put on those fields 🤦. You can send essentially
 >>>>>>> what you want and then hit BigQuery, which is serious about them.
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> ...in fact on my side I check too with jsonschema in my script before using kcidb :D
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> Sorry about that.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> No worries.
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>> I opened an issue for this: https://github.com/kernelci/kcidb/issues/108
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> For now please just make sure your timestamp comply with RFC3339.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> You can produce such a timestamp e.g. using "date --rfc-3339=s".
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> I'll anyway fix my data on my side too, to have the real discovery timestamp.
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> Nick
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> Thanks
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> Cristian
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>> On 9/18/20 6:30 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
 >>>>>>>> On 9/18/20 6:21 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>>>>>>>     > So in order to carry on my experiments, I've just tried to push a new dataset
 >>>>>>>>     > with a few changes in my data-layout to mimic what I see other origins do; this
 >>>>>>>>     > contained something like 38 builds across 4 different revisions (with brand new
 >>>>>>>>     > revisions IDs), but I cannot see anything on the UI: I just keep seeing the old
 >>>>>>>>     > push from yesterday.
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>     > JSON seems valid and kcidb-submit does not report any error even using -l DEBUG.
 >>>>>>>>     > (I pushed >30mins ago)
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>     > Any idea ?
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> Yes, I think it's one of the problems you uncovered :)
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> The schema allows for fully-compliant RFC3339 timestamps, but the BigQuery
 >>>>>>>> database on the backend doesn't understand some of them. In particular it
 >>>>>>>> doesn't understand the date-only timestamps you send. E.g. "2020-09-13".
 >>>>>>>> That's what I wanted to fix today, but ran out of time.
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> Additionally, the backend doesn't have a way to report a problem to the
 >>>>>>>> submitter at the moment. We intend to fix that, but for now it's possible only
 >>>>>>>> through us looking at the logs and sending a message to the submitter :)
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> To work around this you can pad your timestamps with dummy date and time
 >>>>>>>> data.
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> E.g. instead of sending:
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>         2020-09-13
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> you can send:
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>         2020-09-13 00:00:00+00:00
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> Hopefully that's the only problem. It could be, since you managed to send data
 >>>>>>>> before :)
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> Nick
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> On 9/18/20 6:21 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>>>>>>>     > Hi Nikolai,
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>     > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 08:26:15PM +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
 >>>>>>>>     >> On 9/17/20 7:22 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>>>>>>>     >>> It works too ... :D
 >>>>>>>>     >>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>> https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/d/build/build?orgId=1&var-dataset=playground_kernelci04&var-id=arm:2020-07-07:d3d7689c2cc9503266cac3bc777bb4ddae2e5f2e
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >> Whoa, awesome!
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >> And you have already uncovered a few issues we need to fix, too!
 >>>>>>>>     >> I will deal with them tomorrow.
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >>> ..quick question though....given that now I'll have to play quite a bit
 >>>>>>>>     >>> with it and see how's better to present our data, if anythinjg missing etc etc,
 >>>>>>>>     >>> is there any chance (or way) that if I submmit the same JSON report multiple
 >>>>>>>>     >>> times with slight differences here and there (but with the same IDs clearly)
 >>>>>>>>     >>> I'll get my DB updated in the bits I have changed: as an example I've just
 >>>>>>>>     >>> resubmitted the same report with added discovery_time and descriptions, and got
 >>>>>>>>     >>> NO errors, but I cannot see the changes in the UI (unless they have still to
 >>>>>>>>     >>> propagate...)..or maybe I can obtain the same effect by dropping my dataset
 >>>>>>>>     >>> before re-submitting ?
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >> Right now it's not supported (with various possible quirks if attempted).
 >>>>>>>>     >> So, preferably, submit only one, complete and final instance of each object
 >>>>>>>>     >> (with unique ID) for now.
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >> We have a plan to support merging missing properties across multiple reported
 >>>>>>>>     >> objects with the same ID.
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >>              Object A        Object B    Dashboard/Notifications
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >> FieldX:     Foo             Foo         Foo
 >>>>>>>>     >> FieldY:                     Bar         Bar
 >>>>>>>>     >> FieldZ:     Baz                         Baz
 >>>>>>>>     >> FieldU:     Red             Blue        Red/Blue
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >> Since we're using a distributed database we cannot really maintain order
 >>>>>>>>     >> (without introducing artificial global lock), so the order of the reports
 >>>>>>>>     >> doesn't matter. We can only guarantee that a present value would override
 >>>>>>>>     >> missing value. It would be undefined which value would be picked among
 >>>>>>>>     >> multiple different values.
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >> This would allow gradual reporting of each object, but no editing, sorry.
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >> However, once again, this is a plan with some research done, only.
 >>>>>>>>     >> I plan to start implementing it within a few weeks.
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>     > So in order to carry on my experiments, I've just tried to push a new dataset
 >>>>>>>>     > with a few changes in my data-layout to mimic what I see other origins do; this
 >>>>>>>>     > contained something like 38 builds across 4 different revisions (with brand new
 >>>>>>>>     > revisions IDs), but I cannot see anything on the UI: I just keep seeing the old
 >>>>>>>>     > push from yesterday.
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>     > JSON seems valid and kcidb-submit does not report any error even using -l DEBUG.
 >>>>>>>>     > (I pushed >30mins ago)
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>     > Any idea ?
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>     > Thanks
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>     > Cristian
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>     >> Nick
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >> On 9/17/20 7:22 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>>>>>>>     >>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 04:52:30PM +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
 >>>>>>>>     >>>> Hi Christian,
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>> On 9/17/20 3:50 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> Hi Nikolai,
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> I work at ARM in the Kernel team and, in short, we'd like certainly to
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> contribute our internal Kernel test results to KCIDB.
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>> Wonderful!
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> After having attended your LPC2020 TestMC and KernelCI/BoF, I've now cooked
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> up some KCIDB JSON test report (seemingly valid against your KCIDB v3 schema)
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> and I'd like to start experimenting with kci-submit (on non-production
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> instances), so as to assess how to fit our results into your schema and maybe
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> contribute with some new KCIDB requirements if strictly needed.
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>> Great, this is exactly what we need, welcome aboard :)
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>> Please don't hesitate to reach out on kernelci@groups.io or on #kernelci on
 >>>>>>>>     >>>> freenode.net, if you have any questions, problems, or requirements.
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> Is it possible to get some valid credentials and a playground instance to
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> point at ?
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>> Absolutely, I created credentials for you and sent them in a separate message.
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>> You can use origin "arm" for the start, unless you have multiple CI systems
 >>>>>>>>     >>>> and want to differentiate them somehow in your reports.
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>> Nick
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>    Thanks !
 >>>>>>>>     >>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>> It works too ... :D
 >>>>>>>>     >>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>> https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/d/build/build?orgId=1&var-dataset=playground_kernelci04&var-id=arm:2020-07-07:d3d7689c2cc9503266cac3bc777bb4ddae2e5f2e
 >>>>>>>>     >>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>> ..quick question though....given that now I'll have to play quite a bit
 >>>>>>>>     >>> with it and see how's better to present our data, if anythinjg missing etc etc,
 >>>>>>>>     >>> is there any chance (or way) that if I submmit the same JSON report multiple
 >>>>>>>>     >>> times with slight differences here and there (but with the same IDs clearly)
 >>>>>>>>     >>> I'll get my DB updated in the bits I have changed: as an example I've just
 >>>>>>>>     >>> resubmitted the same report with added discovery_time and descriptions, and got
 >>>>>>>>     >>> NO errors, but I cannot see the changes in the UI (unless they have still to
 >>>>>>>>     >>> propagate...)..or maybe I can obtain the same effect by dropping my dataset
 >>>>>>>>     >>> before re-submitting ?
 >>>>>>>>     >>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>> Regards
 >>>>>>>>     >>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>> Thanks
 >>>>>>>>     >>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>> Cristian
 >>>>>>>>     >>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>> On 9/17/20 3:50 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> Hi Nikolai,
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> I work at ARM in the Kernel team and, in short, we'd like certainly to
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> contribute our internal Kernel test results to KCIDB.
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> After having attended your LPC2020 TestMC and KernelCI/BoF, I've now cooked
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> up some KCIDB JSON test report (seemingly valid against your KCIDB v3 schema)
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> and I'd like to start experimenting with kci-submit (on non-production
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> instances), so as to assess how to fit our results into your schema and maybe
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> contribute with some new KCIDB requirements if strictly needed.
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> Is it possible to get some valid credentials and a playground instance to
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> point at ?
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> Thanks
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> Regards
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>> Cristian
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>>
 >>>>>>>>     >>
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>     > >
 >>>>>>>>     >
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> 
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>
 >>
 >