On 29/11/2015 23:55, John Spray wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 29/11/2015 21:47, John Spray wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29/11/2015 21:08, John Spray wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Ceph, >>>>>> >>>>>> An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message like so: >>>>>> >>>>>> teuthology: --suite rbd >>>>>> >>>>>> to state that this commit should be tested with the rbd suite. It could be parsed by bots and humans. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would make it easy and cost effective to run partial teuthology suites automatically on pull requests. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think ? >>>>> >>>>> Hmm, we are usually testing things at the branch/PR level rather than >>>>> on the per-commit level, so it feels a bit strange to have this in the >>>>> commit message. >>>> >>>> Indeed. But what is a branch if not the HEAD commit ? >>> >>> It's the HEAD commit, and its ancestors. So in a typical PR (or >>> branch) there are several commits since the base (i.e. since master), >>> and perhaps only one of them has a test suite marked on it, or maybe >>> they have different test suites marked on different commits in the >>> branch. >>> >>> It's not necessarily a problem, just something that would need to have >>> a defined behaviour (maybe when testing a PR collect the "teuthology:" >>> tags from all commits in PR, and run all the suites mentioned?). >> >> That's an interesting idea :-) My understanding is that we currently test a PR by scheduling suites on its HEAD. But maybe you sometime schedule suites using a commit that's in the middle of a PR ? > > I think I've made this too complicated... > > What I meant was that while one would schedule suites against the HEAD > of the PR, that might not be the same commit that has the logical > testing information in. For example, I might have main commit that > has the "Fixes: " and "teuthology: " tags, and then a second commit > (that would be HEAD) which e.g. tweaks a unit test. It would be weird > if I had to put the teuthology: tag on the unit test commit rather > than the functional test, so I guess it would make sense to look at > the teuthology: tags from all the commits in a PR when scheduling it. Thanks for explaining, it's cristal clear. My initial idea of having a teuthology: tag on the top level commit was indeed naive and wrong. And looking through all commits and scheduling the suites found on the HEAD as you suggest reflect what we manually do and sound right :-) Cheers -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
