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

separate the test result intermediate types from test result output types #66

Merged

Conversation

deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

@deads2k deads2k commented Sep 1, 2020

This starts to bring a more principled pipeline and will help developers understand what information is available at what point. Also, turns out some fields were never filled in before!

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: deads2k
To complete the pull request process, please assign bparees
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @bparees in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@deads2k deads2k force-pushed the refactor-sippy-06-split-types branch from 1a415d9 to 5048cf7 Compare September 1, 2020 14:14
Copy link
Contributor

@bparees bparees left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

slight disagreement on the direction of one of the TODOs, otherwise seems fine

// TODO Inside a particular job, only bugs matching the job are present.
// TODO Inside a platform, only bugs matching the platform are present.
BugList []bugsv1.Bug `json:"bugList"`
// TODO fix search link to properly take into account release, job, and platform.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i'm not sure we want that. it's a bit of a debate in my head how much to filter the ci-search results. Filtering by release makes reasonable sense to me (i don't care about test failures from another release, they are a different codebase and may not be relevant). But I probably do care about failures from other platforms/jobs within the same release. They may not have the same cause, but it's informative to know where else the test is failing.

Since the search link already accounts for the release, i'd vote for just removing this todo as i don't think it's an appropriate goal. but i guess we can debate that elsewhere.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since the search link already accounts for the release, i'd vote for just removing this todo as i don't think it's an appropriate goal. but i guess we can debate that elsewhere.

you'll get a chance to object if anyone actually makes it do this. Based on context, I think we want different ci-search links.
0. for a release (like the top failing test view) - restrict by release

  1. for a variant (like the by variant view) - restrict by variant and release
  2. for a job (like the by-job view and the BZ failure view) - restrict by job and release

It's much easier to remove the restrictions after clicking that knowing the format to create them to begin with.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

actually it already does those things today, so is this change removing that behavior?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In master, the only spot I found setting SearchLink is here:

sippy/main.go

Lines 708 to 710 in 953f785

testSearchUrl := gohtml.EscapeString(regexp.QuoteMeta(test.Name))
testLink := fmt.Sprintf("<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://search.ci.openshift.org/?maxAge=48h&context=1&type=bug%%2Bjunit&name=&maxMatches=5&maxBytes=20971520&groupBy=job&search=%s\">%s</a>", testSearchUrl, test.Name)
test.SearchLink = testLink

However I think that testresults in the various ByFoo should have different SearchLinks.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 5048cf7 into openshift:master Sep 3, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants