On 2/9/21 3:37 AM, Sunny Kumar wrote:

Hey Ernesto,

Thanks!

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 6:46 PM Ernesto Puerta <epuertat@redhat.com> wrote:

...

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.

Yes sure we can use any existing labels, I was considering `next` to imply this will be marked for the next batch. There is no need for skip-label as this action will be only triggered for the PRs marked with label `next`.

In addition to `next` there also will be a list of required labels (like needs-qa) and conditions(all mandatory checks passed) to be met before getting included in the next batch. If any PR(s) will not satisfy these criteria a comment with proper explanation will be made.

...

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?

Yes! component-wise will increase the number of runs. I am working to make it more like a schedule say run once or twice a day. Longer the duration, more PRs can enter the next batch.

This seems like a good place to start, we can always adjust the batching later if needed. Josh

On 2/9/21 12:00 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote:

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 3:50 AM 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.

It's not really the number of scheduled suite runs that matter, but the total number of jobs. I'm inclined to think runs should be batched together based on the component/suites they need to run through, since we try to cross-pollinate the QA to catch obvious errors which cross component boundaries, and non-obvious ones can be caught in master integration.

I'm curious about the intention here, though -- do we expect all QA runs to eventually be scheduled this way? If so, that sounds GREAT, but for ease of error bisection we probably want to limit the number of PRs which are batched together, or have some way to differentiate between low- and high-risk changes so that we can push simpler things through ASAP without them getting stuck behind more invasive patches that cause test issues.

Yes, using this to replace manual scheduling is the idea - that will save a lot of developer time and lower the probability of accindents like running the wrong suite(s). If we can stabilize the suites enough (I hope we can with all the bug fixing for pacific) we could even use these runs as a gate for merging PRs. Josh