Thanks for letting me know and sorry for the confusion. It's fine to go ahead and do a gerrit-verify-dry-run. I think the missing info that I didn't communicate earlier is:
- gerrit-verify-dry-run is a superset of gerrit-code-review-checks so it's fine to run gerrit-verify-dry-run without waiting for the previous job. The intent is just to prefetch some of the more common reasons for merge failures. - I've configured gerrit-code-review-checks to not trigger on clean rebases, which is why it didn't trigger on PS8. - You can manually trigger a patchset if you have the appropriate jenkins access here: https://jenkins.impala.io/gerrit_manual_trigger/ It seems like I should probably document this better. As a stopgap I improved the description of the jenkins job. Should I revisit triggering on clean rebases? I was originally thinking that it would add noise, but I can see that it could cause confusion. And of course clean rebases can break compilation. - Tim On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:33 AM, Zoltan Borok-Nagy <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I might have ran into a bug of gerrit-code-review-checks with this change: > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/11160/ > > The job failed for PS 7, because it didn't contain > bin/jenkins/build-only.sh. > > So I rebased and uploaded PS 8, but that didn't trigger > gerrit-code-review-checks. So I went to jenkins and hit "Retrigger" on the > failed job, but it executed the job against PS 7, not PS 8. > > And when I look at "Build with parameters", I can only see the > IMPALA_REPO_URL and IMPALA_LZO_BRANCH parameters, so I cannot really run > this job against the my newest patch set. > > Anyway the change is already +2ed and I could run gerrit-verify-dryrun > which almost certainly do these checks as well, but if it didn't I don't > want to commit something that might break gerrit-core-review-checks for > subsequent changes. > > Thanks, > Zoltan > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:56 PM Tim Armstrong > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The flake8 comments should now line up correctly with your diff. I got > more > > feedback that some of the comments were a little strict (and it's unclear > > which ones will be enforced) so I posted a diff to disable some of the > > checks: > > > > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/11102/ > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Tim Armstrong <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > Todd pointed out a bug where it was posting flake8 comments that didn't > > > align with the diff. I figured out the issue but will keep the job in a > > > silent mode for a bit while I monitor it. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Jim Apple > <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> This is from my .emacs. The way it works is that you select a region > and > > >> then M-x pep8-region. > > >> > > >> (defun pep8-region (&optional b e) > > >> (interactive "r") > > >> (call-process-region b e > > >> "/home/jbapple/.local/bin/autopep8" t t nil > > >> "--indent-size=2" "--max-line-length=90" "-a" > > "-a" > > >> "-a" "-a" "-a" "-a" "-a" "-a" "--experimental" > > >> "-")) > > >> > > >> It's . . . not great. For instance, it doesn't understand that if > you're > > >> already 4 spaces in at the start of the region, you don't want to > revert > > >> back to 0 or 2 spaces in. That said, it can still be helpful. I don't > > >> think > > >> this is as sophisticated as clang-format.el. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Todd Lipcon > <[email protected] > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Tim Armstrong < > > >> > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I agree that it might be a little strict at the moment and > disallow > > >> some > > >> > > reasonable formatting. The tool is controlled by the setup.cfg > file > > in > > >> > the > > >> > > repo so it's easy enough to change the behaviour. > > >> > > > > >> > > I think we have been a little sloppy with Python style in general > > so I > > >> > > think some of these would be good to change over time. I think the > > >> main > > >> > > thing I'd like is to align the tool's behaviour with code reviews > - > > if > > >> > > we're going to be strict about PEP 8 compliance in code reviews we > > >> should > > >> > > keep the tool strict. > > >> > > > > >> > > > 109 : E125 continuation line with same indent as next logical > > >> line > > >> > > I think this formatting is hard to read and confusing, I'm in > favour > > >> of > > >> > > leaving this enabled. > > >> > > > > >> > > > 110 : E701 multiple statements on one line (colon) > > >> > > This if because of the one-line if statements we have in the > code. I > > >> > don't > > >> > > feel strongly either way as long as we're consistent. > > >> > > > > >> > > > 129 : E231 missing whitespace after ',' > > >> > > > 185 : E251 unexpected spaces around keyword / parameter > equals > > >> > > > 288 : E502 the backslash is redundant between brackets > > >> > > These seems like sloppy/inconsistent formatting to me, I'm in > favour > > >> of > > >> > > keeping these enabled and fixing existing code as we go. > > >> > > > > >> > > > 368 : E302 expected 2 blank lines, found 1 > > >> > > Our Python code is very inconsistent here, would be nice to make > it > > >> more > > >> > > consistent. I'm in favour of keeping it enabled and fixing as we > go. > > >> > > > > >> > > > 187 : E121 continuation line under-indented for hanging > indent > > >> > > > 1295 : E128 continuation line under-indented for visual indent > > >> > > On one hand it would be nice to follow the PEP 8 style here ( > > >> > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#indentation) but the > > other > > >> > > idioms > > >> > > seem fine to me. I've been asked on Python code reviews to switch > to > > >> the > > >> > > PEP 8 indentation style before so I think we should align the > tools > > >> > > behaviour with what we're going to ask for code reviews. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Alright, I agree with all of the above. One suggestion, though: is > it > > >> > possible to get something like 'autopep8' to run in a 'patch > > formatting' > > >> > mode where it only reformats changed lines? Then we could more > easily > > >> just > > >> > run a single command to ensure that our patches are properly > formatted > > >> > before submitting to review. Or, at the very least, some > instructions > > >> for > > >> > running the same flake8-against-only-my-changed-lines that gerrit > is > > >> > running? > > >> > > > >> > -Todd > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Todd Lipcon > > >> <[email protected]> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > It seems like flake8 might need some adjustment of its policies. > > >> Here > > >> > are > > >> > > > the most common issues in the current test code: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 109 : E125 continuation line with same indent as next > logical > > >> line > > >> > > > 110 : E701 multiple statements on one line (colon) > > >> > > > 129 : E231 missing whitespace after ',' > > >> > > > 185 : E251 unexpected spaces around keyword / parameter > equals > > >> > > > 187 : E121 continuation line under-indented for hanging > indent > > >> > > > 288 : E502 the backslash is redundant between brackets > > >> > > > 368 : E302 expected 2 blank lines, found 1 > > >> > > > 1295 : E128 continuation line under-indented for visual > indent > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Maybe worth just disabling some of the indentation-related ones > to > > >> > start? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:09 PM, Tim Armstrong < > > >> > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I have a few updates. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I added an automatic build job for docs changes: > > >> > > > > https://jenkins.impala.io/job/gerrit-docs-auto-test/ > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I'm going to disable the "Build started" message for > > >> > > > > gerrit-code-review-checks. It seems a bit too chatty. Let me > > know > > >> if > > >> > > you > > >> > > > > disagree. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I'm adding a job that automatically does some checks on the > diff > > >> and > > >> > > > posts > > >> > > > > code review comments. I started off with Python flake8 > comments. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Let me know if you see any problems or if it turns out to be > too > > >> > noisy. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Tim Armstrong < > > >> > > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi All, > > >> > > > > > I'm enabling an automatic precommit job for code reviews > > >> uploaded > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > > gerrit that will run RAT, clang-tidy and a GCC debug > > >> compilation. > > >> > > This > > >> > > > is > > >> > > > > > to provide faster feedback on code reviews: > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/ > > >> > > > > > jira/browse/IMPALA-7317 . I'll add some more checks but I'm > > >> wanting > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > > test the basic mechanism for a bit now. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > It excludes docs/ commits. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Let me know if you see any problems with it. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > Tim > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > Todd Lipcon > > >> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Todd Lipcon > > >> > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
