[all] Gate resources and performance

Dmitry Tantsur dtantsur at redhat.com
Sat Feb 6 09:33:17 UTC 2021

On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 12:10 AM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:

> 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.

Very unfortunately, it's far from being the case in the ironic world.

> 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.

This is fair, I'm only referring to the case where the parent has to be
rechecked because of a transient problem.

> 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.

Unfortunately, yes.

A parallel proposal, that has been rejected numerous times, is to allow
recheching only the failed jobs.


> 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

Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20210206/b8aa990b/attachment.html>

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list