On 2021-02-05 22:52:15 +0100 (+0100), Dmitry Tantsur wrote: [...]
7.1. Stop marking dependent patches with Verified-2 if their parent fails in the gate, keep them at Verified+1 (their previous state). This is a common source of unnecessary rechecks in the ironic land. [...]
Zuul generally assumes that if a change fails tests, it's going to need to be revised. Gerrit will absolutely refuse to allow a change to merge if its parent has been revised and the child has not been rebased onto that new revision. Revising or rebasing a change clears the Verified label and will require new test results. Which one or more of these conditions should be considered faulty? I'm guessing you're going to say it's the first one, that we shouldn't assume just because a change fails tests that means it needs to be fixed. This takes us back to the other subthread, wherein we entertain the notion that if changes have failing jobs and the changes themselves aren't at fault, then we should accept this as commonplace and lower our expectations. Keep in mind that the primary source of pain here is one OpenStack has chosen. That is, the "clean check" requirement that a change get a +1 test result in the check pipeline before it can enter the gate pipeline. This is an arbitrary pipeline criterion, chosen to keep problematic changes from getting approved and making their way through the gate queue like a wrecking-ball, causing repeated test resets for the changes after them until they reach the front and Zuul is finally able to determine they're not just conflicting with other changes ahead. If a major pain for Ironic and other OpenStack projects is the need to revisit the check pipeline after a gate failure, that can be alleviated by dropping the clean check requirement. Without clean check, a change which got a -2 in the gate could simply be enqueued directly back to the gate again. This is how it works in our other Zuul tenants. But the reason OpenStack started enforcing it is that reviewers couldn't be bothered to confirm changes really were reasonable, had *recent* passing check results, and confirmed that observed job failures were truly unrelated to the changes themselves. -- Jeremy Stanley