On 04/16/2018 10:49 AM, Randy Barlow wrote: > Alternatively, we could discuss it on > this mailing list if desired.
Perhaps it would be useful if I started the discussion here so we could be more informed during Thursday's meeting. pingou and I have been debating whether the project that allows packagers to rerun failed tests should be a service or a library. I am of the position that it should be a library. RATS ==== RATS (Run Another Test Service) is a project that pingou has been working on. It is a web service that allows API callers to ask for a test to be run again. pingou, please do reply if I have misrepresented or omitted anything; I will attempt to outline the benefits that pingou argues for here. * Being a service allows it to keep track of which tests have recently been requested for re-run, which allows it to make sure a single test doesn't get re-requested too many times. * Being a service makes it easy to call from any language (Python, Ruby, etc.). * Being a service makes it possible to update in one place and have all callers get the new behavior without themselves needing to update (as long as the API is kept stable). librat ====== I would like to make the case for using a library (perhaps called librat - lib run another test?) here. Benefits: * A library creates less work for the infrastructure development and ops subteams. Adding a service means adding workload to a thinly stretched devops team, as a service needs monitoring and requires intervention when it goes down. * A library is inherently more reliable than a service. Services must obviously contain the library code, but now also add network dependencies to projects that use them. It's one more piece in the system that can fail and bring down Bodhi. * A library is significantly less code than a service. For example, libraries don't need to authenticate their callers, don't have to serialize/deserialize inputs and return values, and don't need to process human input (like config files). As stated, any service would need the library's code anyway, but will also need much more code to do all of the above. This also means less code to write tests and documentation for. * A library is able to meet all of our known requirements, and is simple. I believe in the "keep it simple principle" - we should pick the simplest solution that meets the requirements. I would like to address the benefits of RATS outlined above, one by one here: * RATS can keep track of which tests have been run to prevent too many re-runs I believe that a library could do this locally for Bodhi and for Pagure too once Pagure gets more test integration, by using a local cache. Bodhi and Pagure will likely not gate on the same kinds of tests, and so they don't need a central authority to make sure they each aren't requesting the same test to be re-run. Furthermore, I think we don't need to do a perfect job of making sure tests aren't re-run at all, which is why I think having a library that caches recent re-run requests will be "good enough" under the "perfect is the enemy of good" mantra. * Calling from multiple languages This is a theoretical requirement at this point - we don't have a real use case for this at this time. Further, a library would make it easy to write a CLI which can be used if there ever does become a requirement for other languages. A REST API is not inherently easier to use than a CLI - in fact, I would make the case that it is harder to use. * Updating While it is true that a service can be updated in one place such that all callers get the update immediately, we do have a big ansible project that can just as easily deploy a library update out to all the machines that use it, so I would argue that we practically have the same benefit with a library. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- email@example.com To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org