Hey Sunny,

Happy to hear about this effort!

Regarding the label/s, there's already this `needs-qa` label, which is basically to ask QA folks to run that PR through teuthology. Could we reuse it?

Additionally, this other 'skip-teuthology' label (we could rename it as 'skip-qa' for consistency) is to make it explicit that a PR doesn't need to go through it.

On the batching process, my vote is for the component-wise grouping, but I understand this might mean a significant increase in runs, right? Are you planning to introduce some 'wait' period to allow more PRs enter the batch?

Kind Regards,

Ernesto

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 12:50 PM Sunny Kumar <sunkumar@redhat.com> wrote:

Hi Folks,

I am working on GitHub action based automation for running teuthology
on some batch of PRs.

Following step describes this workflow:

Step 1: Once any PR passes necessary checks( make etc) a newly
introduced label `next` can be assigned to PR.

Step 2: The `next` labeled PRs will be batched together and scheduled
for the next teuthology run.

The collected labels from all the batched PRs will be used for
selecting the teuthology suite.
Having said that, there are two options to batch and schedule a tethology run:
1. Batch all patch together
2. Batch patch component wise

Both of the above options have their pros and cons one being the high
number of teuthology jobs per run if batched together and more number
teuthology runs if batched component wise.

Please, let me know which option is good to go ahead with and if there
are ways to improve it.

/sunny
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io