Re: [foreman-dev] Test failures and merging PRs
Hello, In general, I agree with what Marek said. Since I was part of the original discussion that started this whole thread, I feel obliged to put in my 2¢. Obviously we all want test to be all green before merging any PR. Still, there are certain cases where tests are red in which I believe using our discretion is enough to merge nonetheless: 1. Intermittent failures in core - sometimes these issues are very difficult to hunt down, and in other cases are caused by things like network outages which are almost impossible to completely prevent. These are very easy to notice since they are usually red in just 1 combination in the matrix with the others green, and are almost always related to ui js timeouts. Rerunning the tests in these cases would most likely make them green again (or lead to another intermittent failure). However, re-running tests in this case causes another job to be added to the already long jenkins queue, and requires the reviewer to remember to check if it passed an hour or two later. 2. Code Climate - I agree, this should only be taken as a guideline, not as a requirement. 3. Failures in plugins (currently we only test Katello but I think we should test more - we already discussed this) - Here there are 3 distinct options: a. Intermittent failure in plugin - this can be ignored imho only for extremely minor changes - e.g. string changed, minor ui fix etc. meaning - only changes that definitely don't touch in an area that should break plugins. If in doubt- rerun the test. b. Plugin is broken but not due to the PR - if multiple PRs are failing with the same errors and they aren't related to the change in the PR, most chances are that the plugin is broken due to changes implemented in it or in some other dependency. In this case I believe it doesn't make sense to block merging in core - it may take several days in some cases for such issues to be resolved, and stopping all work on core until that happens doesn't make much sense. Precaution should be taken not to merge PRs that cause further issues for the plugin, but if failures are limited to the same tests I believe that is enough indication to allow merge. c. PR breaks plugin - Ideally, this shouldn't ever happen - if you are going to break something, deprecate first and give plugins time to adjust. Sometimes this can't be done because reasons, in which case every effort should be taken to make sure plugins are changed accordingly before merging (either by opening PRs or asking assistance from relevant devs). 4. any other failure - rerun tests if not sure if it's related or not. In any case, informing the list of any failures is a good idea, since otherwise they may go to redmine to die (or are completely ignored) with no-one noticing them, or on the other hand - needlessly preventing merges due to them. Perhaps I'm a bit lenient in my approach, but I'd rather merge changes if I'm feeling certain enough that the change doesn't break anything and risk being wrong once in a blue moon (I don't think I recall ever merging with a red test and breaking something in the almost 2 years I've been a core maintainer). Our review process is already very slow, let's not add more difficulty to it. Tomer On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Ivan Necas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Marek Hulán wrote: > > Thanks Timo for your input. Please see my comment below in the text. > > > > On čtvrtek 31. srpna 2017 23:08:34 CEST Timo Goebel wrote: > >> Am 28.08.17 um 17:12 schrieb Marek Hulán: > >> > 1) codeclimate is red > >> > > >> > This can be ignored, we never agreed on using this as a hard metric > for > >> > the > >> > PR. The motivation to introduce it was mainly to save some time to > >> > reviewer. We don't have to run it manually to get indications whether > >> > there's something introducing a big complexity [1]. From my > experience it > >> > sometimes leads to worse code, since author splits the logic into more > >> > methods to lower e.g. cyclomatic complexity but it should be judged > >> > separately in every case. > >> +1 > >> I like it as a suggestion, but sometimes it's just off and better be > >> ignored. > >> > >> > 2) foreman is red > >> > > >> > This can happen because of intermittent tests failures. If the PR is > >> > clearly not causing new ones and commiter is aware of this error, the > PR > >> > is merged with message like "test unrelated" comments. If we are not > >> > sure, we retrigger the run, > >> > > >> > If Foreman develop branch is broken, we need to merge the PR to fix > it so > >> > this is another exception. Usually we trigger the jenkins job manually > >> > first to see that the PR fixes the issue. > >> > >> +1 > >> Yes, don't merge a PR with failing Foreman core tests. > >> > >> > 3) katello is red > >> > > >> > If katello becomes red only for this PR, we analyze what causes it. > >> > Usually it means that we change some internal things that have impact > on > >> > Katello. In such case, we're doi
Re: [foreman-dev] Test failures and merging PRs
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Marek Hulán wrote: > Thanks Timo for your input. Please see my comment below in the text. > > On čtvrtek 31. srpna 2017 23:08:34 CEST Timo Goebel wrote: >> Am 28.08.17 um 17:12 schrieb Marek Hulán: >> > 1) codeclimate is red >> > >> > This can be ignored, we never agreed on using this as a hard metric for >> > the >> > PR. The motivation to introduce it was mainly to save some time to >> > reviewer. We don't have to run it manually to get indications whether >> > there's something introducing a big complexity [1]. From my experience it >> > sometimes leads to worse code, since author splits the logic into more >> > methods to lower e.g. cyclomatic complexity but it should be judged >> > separately in every case. >> +1 >> I like it as a suggestion, but sometimes it's just off and better be >> ignored. >> >> > 2) foreman is red >> > >> > This can happen because of intermittent tests failures. If the PR is >> > clearly not causing new ones and commiter is aware of this error, the PR >> > is merged with message like "test unrelated" comments. If we are not >> > sure, we retrigger the run, >> > >> > If Foreman develop branch is broken, we need to merge the PR to fix it so >> > this is another exception. Usually we trigger the jenkins job manually >> > first to see that the PR fixes the issue. >> >> +1 >> Yes, don't merge a PR with failing Foreman core tests. >> >> > 3) katello is red >> > >> > If katello becomes red only for this PR, we analyze what causes it. >> > Usually it means that we change some internal things that have impact on >> > Katello. In such case, we're doing our best to send a fixing PR to >> > Katello or we ping someone with better knowledge in this area. We don't >> > merge the PR until it's resolved, then usually we merge both parts at the >> > same time. >> >> I think, this is totally unfair to all the "smaller" plugin maintainers >> and that's why I vote for removing the test completely or just keep it >> to test our public APIs. >> I believe, we should do the following: >> If the Foreman PR breaks some public API, e.g. facets, and the Katello >> tests show that, my suggestion is to fix the foreman PR to not break the >> public API and add proper depreciations if possible. >> If we change something inside Foreman - in the past we changed the host >> multiple actions from GET to POST or introduced strong parameters for >> example - the contributor or maintainer should send a mail to >> foreman-dev expaining what needs to be changed in plugins. I think it's >> also a good idea to fix the example plugin or the How to create a plugin >> wiki page if applicable. >> However I think, it's the plugin maintainer's responsibility to make >> sure his plugin works with Foreman. Everything else doesn't scale. In >> the past a lot of "my" plugins broke because of changes to Foreman core. >> Nobody cared to send a PR so far. But that's fine. I don't expect >> anybody to. It's my job to test the plugin and fix it if it breaks. >> I think, we should not block Foreman PRs because an additional parameter >> was added to some internal method, just because Katello happens to >> overwrite that method. It just doesn't make any sense to me why we >> should do that for Katello but not for all the other plugins out there. >> This is not against Katello, it's just the only plugin tested with >> Foreman core right now. >> Currently, we're developing a plugin to show system logfiles in Foreman. >> That requires a complete ELK-stack for development. I would not expect >> every developer to have that at hand. >> If we leave Katello in the matrix, I think it would be totally fair to >> also add our new plugin to Foreman's test matrix as well. But I wouldn't >> want to block Foreman development just because some test in that plugin >> breaks. >> I know, Katello is important for RedHat and it's one of the larger >> plugins. But that doesn't justify a special role in my opinion. > > I understand your feeling. A "justification" for me is that Katello is the > largest plugin we have and therefore is much more prone to be broken by > changes in Foreman. The more code you touch from plugin the higher the chance > is that new core PR breaks something. Also I think for core it's a good way to > find out what impacts our changes have. By testing Katello we get early notice > about something that can impact all plugins. The PR author can consider > whether there's less breaking way of doing the change. > > Having said that I still can understand that other plugin maintainers feel > it's unfair. But instead of dropping Katello from matrix, I think the opposite > approach would make more sense. I'd like to see many more plugins tested. I > think plugin test sets are usually much smaller than core one, so it shouldn't > take too much computation time. +1 - we should probably skip running the foreman tests again with the plugin in this matrix, as this is usually the longest time in the test run for pl
Re: [foreman-dev] Test failures and merging PRs
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Daniel Lobato Garcia wrote: > On 08/28, Marek Hulán wrote: >> Hello devs, >> >> since there was a discussion on foreman-dev IRC channel recently about >> merging >> PRs in Foreman core even if there's some build failed, I talked to few people >> and decided to describe here what I think is current way of how it works. I'm >> also attaching one suggestion at the end that came up after the discussion. >> >> Please, add questions, comments or simple +1 so we all know whether we're on >> the same page. >> >> Core PR runs 7 checks - foreman, katello, codeclimate, hound, prprocessor, >> upgrade, continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr. In ideal case they are all >> green >> and after review, the PR is merged. There are several cases where we can >> merge >> even if the PR is red. >> >> 1) codeclimate is red >> >> This can be ignored, we never agreed on using this as a hard metric for the >> PR. The motivation to introduce it was mainly to save some time to reviewer. >> We don't have to run it manually to get indications whether there's something >> introducing a big complexity [1]. From my experience it sometimes leads to >> worse code, since author splits the logic into more methods to lower e.g. >> cyclomatic complexity but it should be judged separately in every case. > > It should be taken care of whenever possible. Most of the times it's > certainly right and notices typical problems like stupidly long classes, > duplication, etc.. > > https://codeclimate.com/github/rails/rails itself enforces it unless a > maintainer vets the PR. (ad hominem fallacy, I know) > >> >> 2) foreman is red >> >> This can happen because of intermittent tests failures. If the PR is clearly >> not causing new ones and commiter is aware of this error, the PR is merged >> with message like "test unrelated" comments. If we are not sure, we retrigger >> the run, >> >> If Foreman develop branch is broken, we need to merge the PR to fix it so >> this >> is another exception. Usually we trigger the jenkins job manually first to >> see >> that the PR fixes the issue. > > Makes sense to me, generally. The only con I've seen since I started > contributing is that few people care to fix intermittent tests, which > caused the job to be red for weeks at times The problem with intermittent issues, or broken builds that are not related to the PR itself, is that it's not clear whether somebody is already working on it or not. For intermittent issues, would it make sense to track every such an issue in redmine (we perhaps already do) and add vote for it every time it occurs (not sure if one person can vote multiple times for some issue). The goal would be to take this issues as one input of planning and making sure we put it on the iteration. For the master failures, having a foreman-dev thread as soon as it appears and either inform that one is working on fixing that, or ask for somebody else to look into it, could work. Also irc status about that would be useful to know right away what's going on. > >> >> 3) katello is red >> >> If katello becomes red only for this PR, we analyze what causes it. Usually >> it >> means that we change some internal things that have impact on Katello. In >> such >> case, we're doing our best to send a fixing PR to Katello or we ping someone >> with better knowledge in this area. We don't merge the PR until it's >> resolved, >> then usually we merge both parts at the same time. > > This sounds good. Ideally the contributor sends the patch to Katello, please. +1 >> >> If it turns out there are more PRs that are failing with same errors, we >> merge >> PRs if we're sure they don't introduce new Katello failures. At this time, >> we're not blocking merges until Katello is green again. (*) here the >> suggestion applies > > I don't think this is fair. If the Katello job is red, it's our > responsibility to bring it back to green. When the causes for the job to > be red are unknown, merging more stuff in Foreman will certainly NOT > make it easier to understand them. In fact it may just aggravate the > problem. So I would say *no* - at least on PRs I'm reviewing, I'm not > merging if Katello is red. If it's clear the PR is not the reason for the failures, there should not be a reason for blocking the PR from merging. For the investigation, one needs to find the first occurrence of that error in the history, which should be enough to find exact time when it started happening. > >> >> 4) upgrade is red >> >> this is very similar to katello job, if there's some issue in upgrade, we >> should not merge the PR. I remember though, there was a time when we knew the >> job is broken which fall under "known to be broken" category. > > Same as 3. This sound more like broken master case for me. > >> >> 5) There's no 5, all the rest must be green. Sometimes hound service does not >> respond and remains in "running" state, then it's retriggered by the >> reviewer. >> prprocessor and t
Re: [foreman-dev] Test failures and merging PRs
Thanks Timo for your input. Please see my comment below in the text. On čtvrtek 31. srpna 2017 23:08:34 CEST Timo Goebel wrote: > Am 28.08.17 um 17:12 schrieb Marek Hulán: > > 1) codeclimate is red > > > > This can be ignored, we never agreed on using this as a hard metric for > > the > > PR. The motivation to introduce it was mainly to save some time to > > reviewer. We don't have to run it manually to get indications whether > > there's something introducing a big complexity [1]. From my experience it > > sometimes leads to worse code, since author splits the logic into more > > methods to lower e.g. cyclomatic complexity but it should be judged > > separately in every case. > +1 > I like it as a suggestion, but sometimes it's just off and better be > ignored. > > > 2) foreman is red > > > > This can happen because of intermittent tests failures. If the PR is > > clearly not causing new ones and commiter is aware of this error, the PR > > is merged with message like "test unrelated" comments. If we are not > > sure, we retrigger the run, > > > > If Foreman develop branch is broken, we need to merge the PR to fix it so > > this is another exception. Usually we trigger the jenkins job manually > > first to see that the PR fixes the issue. > > +1 > Yes, don't merge a PR with failing Foreman core tests. > > > 3) katello is red > > > > If katello becomes red only for this PR, we analyze what causes it. > > Usually it means that we change some internal things that have impact on > > Katello. In such case, we're doing our best to send a fixing PR to > > Katello or we ping someone with better knowledge in this area. We don't > > merge the PR until it's resolved, then usually we merge both parts at the > > same time. > > I think, this is totally unfair to all the "smaller" plugin maintainers > and that's why I vote for removing the test completely or just keep it > to test our public APIs. > I believe, we should do the following: > If the Foreman PR breaks some public API, e.g. facets, and the Katello > tests show that, my suggestion is to fix the foreman PR to not break the > public API and add proper depreciations if possible. > If we change something inside Foreman - in the past we changed the host > multiple actions from GET to POST or introduced strong parameters for > example - the contributor or maintainer should send a mail to > foreman-dev expaining what needs to be changed in plugins. I think it's > also a good idea to fix the example plugin or the How to create a plugin > wiki page if applicable. > However I think, it's the plugin maintainer's responsibility to make > sure his plugin works with Foreman. Everything else doesn't scale. In > the past a lot of "my" plugins broke because of changes to Foreman core. > Nobody cared to send a PR so far. But that's fine. I don't expect > anybody to. It's my job to test the plugin and fix it if it breaks. > I think, we should not block Foreman PRs because an additional parameter > was added to some internal method, just because Katello happens to > overwrite that method. It just doesn't make any sense to me why we > should do that for Katello but not for all the other plugins out there. > This is not against Katello, it's just the only plugin tested with > Foreman core right now. > Currently, we're developing a plugin to show system logfiles in Foreman. > That requires a complete ELK-stack for development. I would not expect > every developer to have that at hand. > If we leave Katello in the matrix, I think it would be totally fair to > also add our new plugin to Foreman's test matrix as well. But I wouldn't > want to block Foreman development just because some test in that plugin > breaks. > I know, Katello is important for RedHat and it's one of the larger > plugins. But that doesn't justify a special role in my opinion. I understand your feeling. A "justification" for me is that Katello is the largest plugin we have and therefore is much more prone to be broken by changes in Foreman. The more code you touch from plugin the higher the chance is that new core PR breaks something. Also I think for core it's a good way to find out what impacts our changes have. By testing Katello we get early notice about something that can impact all plugins. The PR author can consider whether there's less breaking way of doing the change. Having said that I still can understand that other plugin maintainers feel it's unfair. But instead of dropping Katello from matrix, I think the opposite approach would make more sense. I'd like to see many more plugins tested. I think plugin test sets are usually much smaller than core one, so it shouldn't take too much computation time. In such case I think we'd need a criteria for which plugin should be covered. Feel free to ask me to start separate thread, but few thoughts what these could be: the plugin lives under theforeman organization on github, the plugin is packaged in foreman-packaging, the plugin has supp
Re: [foreman-dev] Test failures and merging PRs
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Timo Goebel wrote: > Am 28.08.17 um 17:12 schrieb Marek Hulán: > >> 1) codeclimate is red >> >> This can be ignored, we never agreed on using this as a hard metric for >> the >> PR. The motivation to introduce it was mainly to save some time to >> reviewer. >> We don't have to run it manually to get indications whether there's >> something >> introducing a big complexity [1]. From my experience it sometimes leads to >> worse code, since author splits the logic into more methods to lower e.g. >> cyclomatic complexity but it should be judged separately in every case. >> > +1 > I like it as a suggestion, but sometimes it's just off and better be > ignored. > >> >> 2) foreman is red >> >> This can happen because of intermittent tests failures. If the PR is >> clearly >> not causing new ones and commiter is aware of this error, the PR is merged >> with message like "test unrelated" comments. If we are not sure, we >> retrigger >> the run, >> >> If Foreman develop branch is broken, we need to merge the PR to fix it so >> this >> is another exception. Usually we trigger the jenkins job manually first >> to see >> that the PR fixes the issue. >> > +1 > Yes, don't merge a PR with failing Foreman core tests. > >> >> 3) katello is red >> >> If katello becomes red only for this PR, we analyze what causes it. >> Usually it >> means that we change some internal things that have impact on Katello. In >> such >> case, we're doing our best to send a fixing PR to Katello or we ping >> someone >> with better knowledge in this area. We don't merge the PR until it's >> resolved, >> then usually we merge both parts at the same time. >> > I think, this is totally unfair to all the "smaller" plugin maintainers > and that's why I vote for removing the test completely or just keep it to > test our public APIs. > I believe, we should do the following: > If the Foreman PR breaks some public API, e.g. facets, and the Katello > tests show that, my suggestion is to fix the foreman PR to not break the > public API and add proper depreciations if possible. > If we change something inside Foreman - in the past we changed the host > multiple actions from GET to POST or introduced strong parameters for > example - the contributor or maintainer should send a mail to foreman-dev > expaining what needs to be changed in plugins. I think it's also a good > idea to fix the example plugin or the How to create a plugin wiki page if > applicable. > However I think, it's the plugin maintainer's responsibility to make sure > his plugin works with Foreman. Everything else doesn't scale. In the past a > lot of "my" plugins broke because of changes to Foreman core. Nobody cared > to send a PR so far. But that's fine. I don't expect anybody to. It's my > job to test the plugin and fix it if it breaks. > I think, we should not block Foreman PRs because an additional parameter > was added to some internal method, just because Katello happens to > overwrite that method. It just doesn't make any sense to me why we should > do that for Katello but not for all the other plugins out there. This is > not against Katello, it's just the only plugin tested with Foreman core > right now. > Currently, we're developing a plugin to show system logfiles in Foreman. > That requires a complete ELK-stack for development. I would not expect > every developer to have that at hand. > If we leave Katello in the matrix, I think it would be totally fair to > also add our new plugin to Foreman's test matrix as well. But I wouldn't > want to block Foreman development just because some test in that plugin > breaks. > I know, Katello is important for RedHat and it's one of the larger > plugins. But that doesn't justify a special role in my opinion. I'm going to try to approach this from an unbiased position, so if I start to lean a particular way please forgive me up front and try to ignore the leaning. I think it's important for us to look at the core reasoning behind why this set of tests was added to Foreman PRs and agreed upon by Foreman and Katello to begin with. 1) Reduce developer inefficiency by preventing broken environments 2) Reduce unplanned work n the form of drop everything fixes With Katello being a large plugin no only in scope, but in developer size whenever a breakage would occur a large set of developers would end up with broken environments that required 1-2 developers to drop what they were doing to fix the issue immediately or face a growing backlog of PRs followed by build breakages which has resulted in a snowball effect. This has never been an enjoyable position to be in, since it could come on unexpectedly. Other plugin's have suffered the same and expressed the same. I would argue that since Foreman provides the plugin ability, it has to honor not breaking them. When this all started, there was a shallow plugin API and the way to "integrate" your plugin was through judicious use of Rubyisms not a public, standardized
Re: [foreman-dev] Test failures and merging PRs
Am 28.08.17 um 17:12 schrieb Marek Hulán: 1) codeclimate is red This can be ignored, we never agreed on using this as a hard metric for the PR. The motivation to introduce it was mainly to save some time to reviewer. We don't have to run it manually to get indications whether there's something introducing a big complexity [1]. From my experience it sometimes leads to worse code, since author splits the logic into more methods to lower e.g. cyclomatic complexity but it should be judged separately in every case. +1 I like it as a suggestion, but sometimes it's just off and better be ignored. 2) foreman is red This can happen because of intermittent tests failures. If the PR is clearly not causing new ones and commiter is aware of this error, the PR is merged with message like "test unrelated" comments. If we are not sure, we retrigger the run, If Foreman develop branch is broken, we need to merge the PR to fix it so this is another exception. Usually we trigger the jenkins job manually first to see that the PR fixes the issue. +1 Yes, don't merge a PR with failing Foreman core tests. 3) katello is red If katello becomes red only for this PR, we analyze what causes it. Usually it means that we change some internal things that have impact on Katello. In such case, we're doing our best to send a fixing PR to Katello or we ping someone with better knowledge in this area. We don't merge the PR until it's resolved, then usually we merge both parts at the same time. I think, this is totally unfair to all the "smaller" plugin maintainers and that's why I vote for removing the test completely or just keep it to test our public APIs. I believe, we should do the following: If the Foreman PR breaks some public API, e.g. facets, and the Katello tests show that, my suggestion is to fix the foreman PR to not break the public API and add proper depreciations if possible. If we change something inside Foreman - in the past we changed the host multiple actions from GET to POST or introduced strong parameters for example - the contributor or maintainer should send a mail to foreman-dev expaining what needs to be changed in plugins. I think it's also a good idea to fix the example plugin or the How to create a plugin wiki page if applicable. However I think, it's the plugin maintainer's responsibility to make sure his plugin works with Foreman. Everything else doesn't scale. In the past a lot of "my" plugins broke because of changes to Foreman core. Nobody cared to send a PR so far. But that's fine. I don't expect anybody to. It's my job to test the plugin and fix it if it breaks. I think, we should not block Foreman PRs because an additional parameter was added to some internal method, just because Katello happens to overwrite that method. It just doesn't make any sense to me why we should do that for Katello but not for all the other plugins out there. This is not against Katello, it's just the only plugin tested with Foreman core right now. Currently, we're developing a plugin to show system logfiles in Foreman. That requires a complete ELK-stack for development. I would not expect every developer to have that at hand. If we leave Katello in the matrix, I think it would be totally fair to also add our new plugin to Foreman's test matrix as well. But I wouldn't want to block Foreman development just because some test in that plugin breaks. I know, Katello is important for RedHat and it's one of the larger plugins. But that doesn't justify a special role in my opinion. If it turns out there are more PRs that are failing with same errors, we merge PRs if we're sure they don't introduce new Katello failures. At this time, we're not blocking merges until Katello is green again. (*) here the suggestion applies 4) upgrade is red this is very similar to katello job, if there's some issue in upgrade, we should not merge the PR. I remember though, there was a time when we knew the job is broken which fall under "known to be broken" category. +1, if upgrade is broken the PR is broken. 5) There's no 5, all the rest must be green. Sometimes hound service does not respond and remains in "running" state, then it's retriggered by the reviewer. prprocessor and travis must always be happy. Don't get me started on hound. But it's the best we have right now, so generally speaking: Yes: Linting is important. If there are lint warnings, we shouldn't merge the PR. Now the promised suggestion. When we see katello/upgrade job is broken on multiple PRs, the first reviewer who spots it should notify the rest of developers about "from now on, we ignore tests XY". The ideal channel seems to be this list. This helps Katello devs to find out when it started, what were the commits that first induced it. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/foreman-dev/p7ESagXwNwk Thanks for comments -- Marek Timo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To
Re: [foreman-dev] Test failures and merging PRs
On 08/28, Marek Hulán wrote: > Hello devs, > > since there was a discussion on foreman-dev IRC channel recently about merging > PRs in Foreman core even if there's some build failed, I talked to few people > and decided to describe here what I think is current way of how it works. I'm > also attaching one suggestion at the end that came up after the discussion. > > Please, add questions, comments or simple +1 so we all know whether we're on > the same page. > > Core PR runs 7 checks - foreman, katello, codeclimate, hound, prprocessor, > upgrade, continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr. In ideal case they are all green > and after review, the PR is merged. There are several cases where we can merge > even if the PR is red. > > 1) codeclimate is red > > This can be ignored, we never agreed on using this as a hard metric for the > PR. The motivation to introduce it was mainly to save some time to reviewer. > We don't have to run it manually to get indications whether there's something > introducing a big complexity [1]. From my experience it sometimes leads to > worse code, since author splits the logic into more methods to lower e.g. > cyclomatic complexity but it should be judged separately in every case. It should be taken care of whenever possible. Most of the times it's certainly right and notices typical problems like stupidly long classes, duplication, etc.. https://codeclimate.com/github/rails/rails itself enforces it unless a maintainer vets the PR. (ad hominem fallacy, I know) > > 2) foreman is red > > This can happen because of intermittent tests failures. If the PR is clearly > not causing new ones and commiter is aware of this error, the PR is merged > with message like "test unrelated" comments. If we are not sure, we retrigger > the run, > > If Foreman develop branch is broken, we need to merge the PR to fix it so this > is another exception. Usually we trigger the jenkins job manually first to see > that the PR fixes the issue. Makes sense to me, generally. The only con I've seen since I started contributing is that few people care to fix intermittent tests, which caused the job to be red for weeks at times > > 3) katello is red > > If katello becomes red only for this PR, we analyze what causes it. Usually it > means that we change some internal things that have impact on Katello. In such > case, we're doing our best to send a fixing PR to Katello or we ping someone > with better knowledge in this area. We don't merge the PR until it's resolved, > then usually we merge both parts at the same time. This sounds good. Ideally the contributor sends the patch to Katello, please. > > If it turns out there are more PRs that are failing with same errors, we merge > PRs if we're sure they don't introduce new Katello failures. At this time, > we're not blocking merges until Katello is green again. (*) here the > suggestion applies I don't think this is fair. If the Katello job is red, it's our responsibility to bring it back to green. When the causes for the job to be red are unknown, merging more stuff in Foreman will certainly NOT make it easier to understand them. In fact it may just aggravate the problem. So I would say *no* - at least on PRs I'm reviewing, I'm not merging if Katello is red. > > 4) upgrade is red > > this is very similar to katello job, if there's some issue in upgrade, we > should not merge the PR. I remember though, there was a time when we knew the > job is broken which fall under "known to be broken" category. Same as 3. > > 5) There's no 5, all the rest must be green. Sometimes hound service does not > respond and remains in "running" state, then it's retriggered by the reviewer. > prprocessor and travis must always be happy. > > Now the promised suggestion. When we see katello/upgrade job is broken on > multiple PRs, the first reviewer who spots it should notify the rest of > developers about "from now on, we ignore tests XY". The ideal channel seems to > be this list. This helps Katello devs to find out when it started, what were > the commits that first induced it. Sorry, I don't think this is a better idea than the current (unspoken) approach to block PRs until Katello is merged. It's good you started this thread, as clearly people have different assumptions on this topic as we didn't talk about it much. If we reach to some conclusions, updating https://theforeman.org/handbook.html with them would be good to have some reference set in stone (or in bytes (: ). > > [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/foreman-dev/p7ESagXwNwk > > Thanks for comments > > -- > Marek > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Daniel Lobato Garcia @dLobatog blog.daniellobato.me daniellobato.me GPG: http://keys.gnupg.net/pks
[foreman-dev] Test failures and merging PRs
Hello devs, since there was a discussion on foreman-dev IRC channel recently about merging PRs in Foreman core even if there's some build failed, I talked to few people and decided to describe here what I think is current way of how it works. I'm also attaching one suggestion at the end that came up after the discussion. Please, add questions, comments or simple +1 so we all know whether we're on the same page. Core PR runs 7 checks - foreman, katello, codeclimate, hound, prprocessor, upgrade, continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr. In ideal case they are all green and after review, the PR is merged. There are several cases where we can merge even if the PR is red. 1) codeclimate is red This can be ignored, we never agreed on using this as a hard metric for the PR. The motivation to introduce it was mainly to save some time to reviewer. We don't have to run it manually to get indications whether there's something introducing a big complexity [1]. From my experience it sometimes leads to worse code, since author splits the logic into more methods to lower e.g. cyclomatic complexity but it should be judged separately in every case. 2) foreman is red This can happen because of intermittent tests failures. If the PR is clearly not causing new ones and commiter is aware of this error, the PR is merged with message like "test unrelated" comments. If we are not sure, we retrigger the run, If Foreman develop branch is broken, we need to merge the PR to fix it so this is another exception. Usually we trigger the jenkins job manually first to see that the PR fixes the issue. 3) katello is red If katello becomes red only for this PR, we analyze what causes it. Usually it means that we change some internal things that have impact on Katello. In such case, we're doing our best to send a fixing PR to Katello or we ping someone with better knowledge in this area. We don't merge the PR until it's resolved, then usually we merge both parts at the same time. If it turns out there are more PRs that are failing with same errors, we merge PRs if we're sure they don't introduce new Katello failures. At this time, we're not blocking merges until Katello is green again. (*) here the suggestion applies 4) upgrade is red this is very similar to katello job, if there's some issue in upgrade, we should not merge the PR. I remember though, there was a time when we knew the job is broken which fall under "known to be broken" category. 5) There's no 5, all the rest must be green. Sometimes hound service does not respond and remains in "running" state, then it's retriggered by the reviewer. prprocessor and travis must always be happy. Now the promised suggestion. When we see katello/upgrade job is broken on multiple PRs, the first reviewer who spots it should notify the rest of developers about "from now on, we ignore tests XY". The ideal channel seems to be this list. This helps Katello devs to find out when it started, what were the commits that first induced it. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/foreman-dev/p7ESagXwNwk Thanks for comments -- Marek -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
