Re: Contributing ARM tests results to KCIDB

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

Hi Nick

On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 03:38:19PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov via groups.io wrote:
> 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
> 

I fixed the issue about uniqueness of the tests IDs but left the valid
flag on the revision undefined as of now given the revision hash is
temporarily faked (as I told you)...just to have an indication that the
revision is bogus.
Anyway I'll have that fixed in our backend soon, and once I'll start
receiving a proper real hash the system 'should' automatically start
tagging revisions as valid: True.

> > 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.

Agreed, using v3 for the moment.

Moreover, after fixing a few more annoyances on my side, today I switched to
KCIDB production and pushed December results; from tomorrow morning it should
start feeding daily data to KCIDB production.

Thanks for the support and patience.

Cristian

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