Re: Contributing ARM tests results to KCIDB

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

On 9/18/20 7:42 PM, 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

Taking a peek into jsonschema's code it seems it should support verifying
that, but perhaps you need to enable it explicitly?

 >>
 >> 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.

Great! And glad to hear it worked for you :)

Have a nice weekend!
Nick

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