[webkit-dev] iOS EWS behind by 3 days??

[Ryosuke Niwa]

Hi all,

Does anyone know what's happening with iOS EWS? They're ~3 days behind now:
https://ews-build.webkit.org/#/builders/24

- R. Niwa
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] EWS Comments on Bugzilla (Was: EWS now parses error logs in case of build failure)

[Ryosuke Niwa]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:40 AM Alexey Proskuryakov  wrote:

>
> Can you elaborate on that, how exactly is e-mailing on first failure
> useful to reviewers?
>
> Getting rid of Bugzilla comments was one of the goals of EWS rewrite,
> based on engineering feedback about noise in bugs and in e-mail, and I
> wholeheartedly agree with this feedback. So I think that comments are
> generally undesirable.
>
> Since I don't understand what your precise scenario is, I may be make
> straw man arguments below, but here are some things that I think make the
> proposed behavior unhelpful (add a comment on first failure, or when all
> EWSes pass).
>
> 1. EWS comments in Bugzilla are so annoying that some people take the
> radical step of manually hiding them. EWS history is archived anyway, there
> is no need to look into comments for it.
>
> 2. There are often many people CC'ed on the bug to whom EWS data is
> irrelevant or even mysterious (e.g. reporters, web developers or
> non-reviewers). The noise is a slight annoyance, discouraging further
> participation in the project.
>
> 3. I believe that for most reviewers, the mode of operation is one of the
> two: (1) do it when pinged directly, or (2) go over the review queue when
> one has the time. Getting EWS comments helps neither.
>
> 4. Commenting when all EWSes pass is not very practical - it's too often
> that we have some stragglers that take days (or forever). I don't think
> that we can make it reliable even if we start actively policing EWS
> responsiveness.
>
> 5. The reviewer likely wants to know the state of multiple EWSes if they
> are going to wait for EWS at all. What exactly are they going to do after
> getting an e-mail that one EWS failed?
>

I often use a EWS failure as a signal to wait reviewing a patch. Otherwise,
a bug mail will stay in my inbox as one of items to get to.

I can see the usefulness in the somewhat unusual case of a super urgent
> patch. We may want multiple people to watch it, so that members of CC list
> would go and ask the patch author to update it with more urgency than
> e-mail allows for. I think that opt-in is a better mechanism for that, so
> that people who opted in would receive information about each EWS data
> point.
>

I think there is a value in knowing that a patch isn't ready instead of
having to open the bug to realize that.

- R. Niwa

> 3 нояб. 2019 г., в 6:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak  написал(а):
>
>
> I think they are useful to actual and potential reviewers. Direct email to
> the patch author is not something anyone can Cc themselves on, and is not
> archived, so seems like a strictly worse form of communication.
>
> On Nov 2, 2019, at 9:34 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov  wrote:
>
>
> My preference is still e-mailing the patch author directly (possibly, also
> having an option to opt in for anyone). Bugzilla comments will always be
> irrelevant for most people CC'ed on the bug, and they are almost always
> undesirable to keep within the discussion flow.
>
> - Alexey
>
> 1 нояб. 2019 г., в 18:28, Aakash Jain  написал(а):
>
> Sounds good. I prefer the single comment when the first failure occur.
> That way notification would be sent as soon as the first failure happens.
>
> I'll implement that (assuming it's acceptable to everyone).
>
> Thanks
> Aakash
>
> On Nov 1, 2019, at 8:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak  wrote:
>
>
> How about only a single comment when the first failure occurs? (Or else
> when all bots pass, if there is never a failure.)
>
> This should help the author, the reviewer, and anyone else cc’d, without
> being too spammy.
>
> On Nov 1, 2019, at 5:20 PM, Aakash Jain  wrote:
>
> Hi Ryosuke,
>
> Many people didn't like the noise by the EWS comments, and we removed the
> comments as per previous discussion in:
> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2019-June/030683.html.
>
> I agree with your point that having some kind of notification might be
> useful.
>
> I proposed some ideas in
> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2019-September/030798.html,
> but didn't get much feedback. If we can all agree on a solution, I can look
> into implementing it.
>
> Thanks
> Aakash
>
> On Oct 30, 2019, at 1:03 AM,
> - R. Niwa
>  wrote:
>
> These enhancements are great. There is one feature of the old EWS that I
> really miss, which is that I used to get emails when some EWS failed. With
> new EWS, I have to keep checking back the bugzilla to see if any of them
> have failed periodically.
>
> Can we add a feature to opt into such an email notification? Maybe a flag
> on a patch or JSON configuration file somewhere.
>
> - R. Niwa
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:05 PM Aakash Jain  wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I am happy to announce another EWS feature.
>
> From now on, in case of build failure, EWS will parse the errors and
> display them in a separate 'errors' log. You wouldn't have to search
> through thousands of lines of logs to find the error message.
>
> For example, in 

Re: [webkit-dev] EWS Comments on Bugzilla (Was: EWS now parses error logs in case of build failure)

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

Can you elaborate on that, how exactly is e-mailing on first failure useful to 
reviewers?

Getting rid of Bugzilla comments was one of the goals of EWS rewrite, based on 
engineering feedback about noise in bugs and in e-mail, and I wholeheartedly 
agree with this feedback. So I think that comments are generally undesirable.

Since I don't understand what your precise scenario is, I may be make straw man 
arguments below, but here are some things that I think make the proposed 
behavior unhelpful (add a comment on first failure, or when all EWSes pass).

1. EWS comments in Bugzilla are so annoying that some people take the radical 
step of manually hiding them. EWS history is archived anyway, there is no need 
to look into comments for it.

2. There are often many people CC'ed on the bug to whom EWS data is irrelevant 
or even mysterious (e.g. reporters, web developers or non-reviewers). The noise 
is a slight annoyance, discouraging further participation in the project.

3. I believe that for most reviewers, the mode of operation is one of the two: 
(1) do it when pinged directly, or (2) go over the review queue when one has 
the time. Getting EWS comments helps neither.

4. Commenting when all EWSes pass is not very practical - it's too often that 
we have some stragglers that take days (or forever). I don't think that we can 
make it reliable even if we start actively policing EWS responsiveness.

5. The reviewer likely wants to know the state of multiple EWSes if they are 
going to wait for EWS at all. What exactly are they going to do after getting 
an e-mail that one EWS failed?

6. More bugmail delays response, especially for active project members who are 
CC'ed on a lot of bugs. I personally started reading bugmail more frequently 
now, knowing that there is more signal and less noise.

I can see the usefulness in the somewhat unusual case of a super urgent patch. 
We may want multiple people to watch it, so that members of CC list would go 
and ask the patch author to update it with more urgency than e-mail allows for. 
I think that opt-in is a better mechanism for that, so that people who opted in 
would receive information about each EWS data point.

- Alexey


> 3 нояб. 2019 г., в 6:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak  написал(а):
> 
> 
> I think they are useful to actual and potential reviewers. Direct email to 
> the patch author is not something anyone can Cc themselves on, and is not 
> archived, so seems like a strictly worse form of communication.
> 
>> On Nov 2, 2019, at 9:34 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> My preference is still e-mailing the patch author directly (possibly, also 
>> having an option to opt in for anyone). Bugzilla comments will always be 
>> irrelevant for most people CC'ed on the bug, and they are almost always 
>> undesirable to keep within the discussion flow.
>> 
>> - Alexey
>> 
>>> 1 нояб. 2019 г., в 18:28, Aakash Jain  написал(а):
>>> 
>>> Sounds good. I prefer the single comment when the first failure occur. That 
>>> way notification would be sent as soon as the first failure happens.
>>> 
>>> I'll implement that (assuming it's acceptable to everyone).
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Aakash
>>> 
 On Nov 1, 2019, at 8:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak  wrote:
 
 
 How about only a single comment when the first failure occurs? (Or else 
 when all bots pass, if there is never a failure.)
 
 This should help the author, the reviewer, and anyone else cc’d, without 
 being too spammy.
 
> On Nov 1, 2019, at 5:20 PM, Aakash Jain  wrote:
> 
> Hi Ryosuke,
> 
> Many people didn't like the noise by the EWS comments, and we removed the 
> comments as per previous discussion in: 
> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2019-June/030683.html.
> 
> I agree with your point that having some kind of notification might be 
> useful.
> 
> I proposed some ideas in 
> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2019-September/030798.html, 
> but didn't get much feedback. If we can all agree on a solution, I can 
> look into implementing it.
> 
> Thanks
> Aakash
> 
>> On Oct 30, 2019, at 1:03 AM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
>> 
>> These enhancements are great. There is one feature of the old EWS that I 
>> really miss, which is that I used to get emails when some EWS failed. 
>> With new EWS, I have to keep checking back the bugzilla to see if any of 
>> them have failed periodically.
>> 
>> Can we add a feature to opt into such an email notification? Maybe a 
>> flag on a patch or JSON configuration file somewhere.
>> 
>> - R. Niwa
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:05 PM Aakash Jain  
>> wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>> 
>> I am happy to announce another EWS feature.
>> 
>> From now on, in case of build failure, EWS will parse the errors and 
>> display them in a separate 'errors' log. You wouldn't have to search 

Re: [webkit-dev] [Styling] () for a lambda without arguments (Was Space between [] and () in C++ lambdas)

[Alex Christensen]

When the lambda is mutable or has a trailing return type, the () is currently 
required by the C++ grammar, so we can’t say to always omit ().  We could say 
to always have it, to only have it when necessary, or have no code style 
guideline.  I think we should always have spaces before and after, though.

> On Nov 3, 2019, at 3:27 AM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 8:25 PM Ryosuke Niwa  > wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 7:54 PM Chris Dumez  > wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Nov 2, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Ryosuke Niwa > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 1:23 AM Antti Koivisto > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 1:38 AM Ryosuke Niwa > > wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:53 AM Michael Catanzaro > > wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:19 am, Ryosuke Niwa > > wrote:
>> > Namely, some people write a lambda as:
>> > auto x = [] () { }
>> > 
>> > with a space between [] and () while others would write it as:
>> > 
>> > auto x = []() { }
>> 
>> : I omit the () when there are no parameters, as in these examples.
>> 
>> I guess that's another thing we should decide. Should we, or should we not 
>> have () when there are no arguments.
>> 
>> I think this is easily settled by voting via exiting practice. We have 1287 
>> instances of [&] { and 107 instances of [&]() { and &] () { across the whole 
>> WebKit.
>> 
>> That’s good to know. Why don’t we go with the status quo then.
>> 
>> In this case, we do put a space between ] or ) and {, right?
> 
> How is this the conclusion from Antti’s comment?
> 
> Based on the discussion so far, it thought no space had a slight lead.
> 
> I think you’re conflating this discussion with the other email thread about a 
> space between [] and ().
> 
> Here, I’m talking about placing a space after [] before { as in:
> [] { }
> 
> As opposed to:
> []{ }
> 
> We never use the latter style whether it’s other control flow statements like 
> if, while, or for, or for function definitions.
> 
> - R. Niwa
> 
> -- 
> - R. Niwa
> -- 
> - R. Niwa
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
> 
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev