On 15 Jun 12:11, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 15/06/16 11:58, Russell Currey wrote: > >Currently in Patchwork, individual patches can have a reported test state > >(or a > >Check, as it's referred to in the docs). I couldn't find anything in this > >series that affects this, what are your thoughts on moving that functionality > >from a patch model to a series model? Any kind of tests run on a patch are > >typically focused on the entire series. > > I'd like to see the ability to report a test state against an entire > series, but I think it would be useful to keep test states against > individual patches as well.
This has come up for discussion before, and the same argument for not doing it back then still stands now: bisectability. If you have N patches in a series, then tests should pass for every single patch (+ dependencies) in the series. By testing a whole series, we can't validate this (or, at least we can't be explicit about this). In addition, I consider series (well, series revisions) as mere containers for patches, and I'd be very reluctant to add much logic to them. The best option we might have, if per-series reporting is really necessary, is to allow Check uploading against a Series endpoint. This would actually cause N Checks to be created - one for each Patch in the series - meaning each Patch could still be individually queried. It would be a bit of a lie (we didn't actually test the patch by itself, therefore it might be broken) and I wouldn't promote this workflow myself (bisectability FTW), but it could be a good way of dealing with extremely long-running or resource-intensive test suites, where per-patch validation would be too expensive. Thoughts? Stephen _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
