Open Stack

On 6/27/2014 7:35 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 07:40:51AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>> It's clear that lots of projects want 3rd Party CI information on
>> patches. But it's also clear that 6 months into this experiment with a
>> lot of 3rd Party CI systems, the Gerrit UI is really not great for this.
>
> That's an understatement about the UI :-)
>
>> It seems what we actually want is a dashboard of these results. We want
>> them available when we go to Gerrit, but we don't want them in Gerrit
>> itself.
>>
>> What if 3rd Party CI didn't vote in Gerrit? What if it instead published
>> to some 3rd party test reporting site (a thing that doesn't yet exist).
>> Gerrit has the facility so that we could inject the dashboard content
>> for this in Gerrit in a little table somewhere, but the data would
>> fundamentally live outside of Gerrit. It would also mean that all the
>> aggregate reporting of 3rd Party CI that's being done in custom gerrit
>> scripts, could be integrated directly into such a thing.
>
> Agreed, it would be a great improvement in usability if we stopped all
> CI systems, including our default Jenkins, from ever commenting on
> reviews. At most gating CIs should +1/-1.  Having a table of results
> displayed, pulling the data from an external result tracking system
> would be a great idea.
>
> Even better if this external system had a nice button you can press
> to trigger re-check, so we can stop using comments for that too.

I would disagree with this idea since it's equivalent to 'recheck no 
bug' and that's naughty, because then we don't track race bugs as well.

>
> To me the ideal world is where the only things adding comments to
> reviews are human and their comments are actually about the code
> in the patch :-)
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
>

I would be good with Jenkins not reporting on a successful run, or if 
rather than a comment from Jenkins the vote in the table had a link to 
the test results, so if you get a -1 from Jenkins you can follow the 
link from the -1 in the table rather than the comment (to avoid 
cluttering up the review comments, especially if it's a +1).

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann