From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76015C64E8A for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:12:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BECF120709 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:12:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="JPQE9a3C" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BECF120709 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:36298 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kjeIY-0002dH-Ej for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 03:12:38 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53686) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kjeH9-0001fA-TV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 03:11:13 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:51480) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kjeH7-0008Q3-84 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 03:11:11 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1606723867; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3sify/Ss4ZYG177GknCbKHwgacpQH7/ZUEzTHljaZi4=; b=JPQE9a3Cf775xE7Iwi85ZFul3jUHxYLJoip50kGi4iqrlnE/dXns6qkn4Y+BQn04TfRd35 Q753zPxqGNrimKNdYqImeQ2Cs0doCwGqxFllFHQ4Jy+diMtVp8X8KhKO7pNGkQ4+4xU+Jq 8N+ItlSfxdgwvc/YBlvyAe+eIT0tESA= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-340-rYIA9VfTNwaXU1BXDI2sug-1; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 03:11:03 -0500 X-MC-Unique: rYIA9VfTNwaXU1BXDI2sug-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25D938049E9; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:11:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (ovpn-113-87.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.87]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D7560843; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 08:10:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 09:10:44 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck To: Philippe =?UTF-8?B?TWF0aGlldS1EYXVkw6k=?= Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-for-5.2] gitlab-ci: Do not automatically run Avocado integration tests anymore Message-ID: <20201130091044.2b35fca4.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20201127174110.1932671-1-philmd@redhat.com> <9157dce0-4f5d-3f1e-ce75-3e9da9252203@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=cohuck@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=cohuck@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -35 X-Spam_score: -3.6 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.496, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Thomas Huth , virt-ci-maint-team@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Willian Rampazzo , Cleber Rosa , Alex =?UTF-8?B?QmVubsOpZQ==?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:46:29 +0100 Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: > On 11/27/20 7:29 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 27/11/2020 18.57, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: =20 > >> On 11/27/20 6:47 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: =20 > >>> On 27/11/2020 18.41, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: =20 > >>>> We lately realized that the Avocado framework was not designed > >>>> to be regularly run on CI environments. Therefore, as of 5.2 > >>>> we deprecate the gitlab-ci jobs using Avocado. To not disrupt > >>>> current users, it is possible to keep the current behavior by > >>>> setting the QEMU_CI_INTEGRATION_JOBS_PRE_5_2_RELEASE variable > >>>> (see [*]). > >>>> From now on, using these jobs (or adding new tests to them) > >>>> is strongly discouraged. > >>>> > >>>> Tests based on Avocado will be ported to new job schemes during > >>>> the next releases, with better documentation and templates. =20 > >>> > >>> Why should we disable the jobs by default as long as there is no repl= acement > >>> available yet? =20 > >> > >> Why keep it enabled if it is failing randomly =20 > >=20 > > We can still disable single jobs if they are not stable, but that's no > > reason to disable all of them by default, is it? > > =20 > >> if images hardcoded > >> in tests are being removed from public servers, etc...? =20 > >=20 > > That's independent from Avocado, you'll always have that problem if you= want > > to test with external images, unless you mirror them into a repository = on > > the same server (ie. gitlab), which, however, might not always be possi= ble... > > =20 > >> They are not disabled, they are still runnable manually or setting > >> QEMU_CI_INTEGRATION_JOBS_PRE_5_2_RELEASE... =20 > >=20 > > And who do you think is going to set that variable? Hardly anybody, I g= uess. =20 >=20 > Does that mean nobody cares about these tests? If I first have to set some random config option before tests are run, that's an extra hurdle. I want a simple workflow where I just push to gitlab and don't have to care about extra configuration. >=20 > > So you could also simply remove the stuff from the yml file completely = instead. =20 >=20 > Yes, I'd prefer that too, but Alex objected. >=20 > >> We realized by default Avocado runs all tests on the CI jobs, > >> triggering failures and complains. Developer stopped to contribute/ > >> review integration tests because of that. =20 > >=20 > > Did anybody really stop contributing "acceptance" test since they were > > afraid of the gitlab-CI running them? That's new to me, do you have a p= ointer? =20 >=20 > No, but alternatively, how many tests were contributed / reviewed > last year? I added one, just last week... plan to do more, but there's always less time than things I want/need to do. Maybe this just needs more advertising? >=20 > >> We want developers be > >> able to contribute tests to the repository fearlessly. =20 > >=20 > > You can always mark your test with @skipIf(os.getenv('GITLAB_CI')) if y= ou > > don't want to see it running in the gitlab-CI, so that's not a reason t= o be > > afraid. =20 >=20 > This was the idea here (opposite, tag jobs with 'gating-ci' to run > them on GitLab): > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg756464.html I guess you want all of that: - tag tests that you know to not work, so they're not run - tag tests that you know to be stable, so they can be gating - all non-tagged tests are expected to work usually, but there might be an occasional failure ? >=20 > > =20 > >> If we don't change anything, we'll keep having CI failures due > >> to Avocado design issues (artifacts removed from remote servers, > >> etc...). =20 > >=20 > > I fail to see the relation between Avocado and vanishing artifacts from= 3rd > > party servers... what do you plan to do instead if something gets (re-)= moved > > from a server that is not under our control? =20 >=20 > Avocado tests and CI are orthogonal, but it will be painful to > fix Avocado tests with the current Avocado CI jobs. What's the problem? Cryptic error messages when artifacts cannot be fetched? >=20 > > =20 > >> I haven't seen any attempt on this list to improve the current > >> fragile situation, but better suggestions are certainly welcome. =20 > >=20 > > At least I am hoping that the "check-acceptance" tests will break a lit= tle > > bit less often once Peter uses the gitlab-CI for his gating tests, too.= That > > will at least prevent that one of the tests gets completely broken by a= new > > merged pull request. Of course there's still the risk that tests only f= ail > > occasionally due to new bugs, but that can also happen for all other te= st > > suites (unit, qtest, iotests, ...), too. =20 >=20 > Or Peter (as other users) will get grumpy at these tests because they > are unreliable, hard to understand what fail and debug. >=20 > Thus the removal suggestion, so we can "fix" the missing Avocado parts > before it is used heavily. I think disabling _all_ of them is way too harsh.