Re: rpmgrill in taskotron

2016-07-04 Thread Kamil Paral
> Hey Ralph (ccing qa-devel),
> 
> just to let you know, I added some code to Koji directive to download build
> logs. The patch is posted here:
> https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D916
> (you can use 'arch patch D916' to apply the diff in your libtaskotron
> checkout)
> 
> The corresponding changes for task-rpmgrill are in feature/buildlog branch:
> https://bitbucket.org/fedoraqa/task-rpmgrill/branch/feature/buildlog

I created task-rpmgrill project in Phabricator, and now the patches are 
available here:
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D920
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D921
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


rpmgrill in taskotron

2016-06-30 Thread Kamil Paral
Hey Ralph (ccing qa-devel),

just to let you know, I added some code to Koji directive to download build 
logs. The patch is posted here:
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D916
(you can use 'arch patch D916' to apply the diff in your libtaskotron checkout)

The corresponding changes for task-rpmgrill are in feature/buildlog branch:
https://bitbucket.org/fedoraqa/task-rpmgrill/branch/feature/buildlog

I could have implemented shuffling the build.log files around in 
run_rpmgrill.py, but it seemed easier to have it in a bash script. I moved all 
the rpmgrill* commands in there as well, and used our new bash directive to 
execute it (it still has rough edges, we're working on that). But having it in 
a bash script is not necessary, if you prefer to do it all in python, we 
definitely don't have to merge the code as it is :)

I also removed your failsafe decorator, but again, it's just a suggestion. The 
first reason was that since I moved most of the setup code and rpmgrill 
execution into the bash directive, the decorator didn't have any affect on it 
anyway. The second reason is that we seem to be of an opinion that ResultsDB 
should only contain real results (passed, failed), and crashes and similar 
execution statuses should be only present in ExecDB [1] (which, however, cannot 
be searched yet). This is all up to discussion, and our current solutions have 
a lot of rough edges, so if you want to continue sending CRASHED to ResultsDB 
in case of errors, we have no problem with it, and we can convert task-rpmgrill 
once we're 100% sure how we want things to look like and have it implemented 
properly. Please note, though, that we currently receive emails for all tests 
that crash hard, so we will be able to spot any task-rpmgrill issues even if 
not wrapped in the failsafe decorator.

If you have any questions or concerns, please ask :)

Cheers,
Kamil

[1] https://taskotron.fedoraproject.org/execdb/
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org