Re: Contributing ARM tests results to KCIDB

Nikolai Kondrashov
2020-11-06T10:35:18Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13952 bytes --]

Hi Cristian,

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.

Glad to see you returning to this :)

> 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 ?

Yeah I can see your submissions, and I see that they're failing validation due
to the timestamps (yeah, them again ^_^) missing the "T" between the date and
the time, as required by the "date-time" format of the JSON schema
(https://json-schema.org/draft/2019-09/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.7.3.1),
which is basically https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339#section-5.6

KCIDB had an issue, where we didn't enable validating "formats" in the JSON
schema, partly because of the jsonschema package being sneaky about it.

That is fixed in the latest release. You can catch those issues, if you update
your kcidb installation. E.g. with:

pip3 install --user git+https://github.com/kernelci/kcidb.git@v8

I have manually fixed up and attached the first of your recent submissions, so
you can easily see what needs changing.

We still have the server-side error-reporting issue open and queued for fixing
in the next release (https://github.com/kernelci/kcidb/issues/125), so you can
see those yourself, we just didn't have time to get to it yet ^_^.

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

[-- Attachment #2: fixed.json.gz --]
[-- Type: application/gzip, Size: 223562 bytes --]