Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

x/build: adding LUCI builders blocking submit is too manual #65439

Open
bcmills opened this issue Feb 1, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

x/build: adding LUCI builders blocking submit is too manual #65439

bcmills opened this issue Feb 1, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
Builders x/build issues (builders, bots, dashboards) NeedsInvestigation Someone must examine and confirm this is a valid issue and not a duplicate of an existing one.
Milestone

Comments

@bcmills
Copy link
Member

bcmills commented Feb 1, 2024

Go version

N/A

Output of go env in your module/workspace:

N/A

What did you do?

Review contributed changes that need additional testing (such as running on a longtest builder or a particular architecture) before they can be safely merged.

What did you see happen?

There is a “CHOOSE TRYJOBS” button, but IIRC it doesn't affect auto-submit, and it definitely doesn't stick when a new patchset is uploaded.

It is possible to leave a comment requesting that the author add a Cq-Include-Trybots: line to the commit message, but for small externally-contributed changes that can add an extra round-trip.

What did you expect to see?

Some way that I (as a reviewer) can mark the CL as ok to auto-submit provided that a specific set of additional LUCI builders succeeds.

@gopherbot gopherbot added the Builders x/build issues (builders, bots, dashboards) label Feb 1, 2024
@gopherbot gopherbot added this to the Unreleased milestone Feb 1, 2024
@mknyszek mknyszek added the NeedsInvestigation Someone must examine and confirm this is a valid issue and not a duplicate of an existing one. label Feb 1, 2024
@mknyszek
Copy link
Contributor

mknyszek commented Feb 1, 2024

Agreed that this is annoying and a regression from previous behavior. I found a relevant upstream issue and posted to it: https://crbug.com/1498511. This is something we may be able to improve ourselves with some guidance and/or input from the LUCI team.

(Personally, I would really love to also take advantage of the idea in https://crbug.com/1498511 to shrink the Choose Tryjobs list, if possible. I have a planned workaround, but it's kind of a hack.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Builders x/build issues (builders, bots, dashboards) NeedsInvestigation Someone must examine and confirm this is a valid issue and not a duplicate of an existing one.
Projects
Status: Planned
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants