Re: Contributing ARM tests results to KCIDB

["Cristian Marussi" <cristian.marussi@arm.com>]

Hi Nikolai,

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 06:30:30PM +0300, 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".

Ah damn, I was in fact dubious about that, but I'll add full timestamp.

> 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 :)
> 

Does not seem so much fun :D 

> 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 :)
> 
Great, it works now as you advised with a dummy hour timestamp added !

Thanks

Cristian

> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
>