[all][TC] Stats about rechecking patches without reason given

Matthias Runge mrunge at matthias-runge.de
Fri Jul 1 06:46:23 UTC 2022

On 30/06/2022 20:06, Dan Smith wrote:
>>> Or vice versa, if there are 20 rechecks for 2 patches, even if neither
>>> of them are bare, it's still weird and smth worth reconsidering from
>>> project perspective.
>> I think the idea is to create a culture of debugging and record
>> keeping. Yes, I would expect after a few rechecks that maybe the root
>> causes would be addressed in this case, but the first step in doing
>> that is identifying the problem and making note of it.
> Right, that is the goal. Asking for a message at least sets the
> expectation that people are looking at the reasons for the fails. Just
> because they don't doesn't mean they aren't, or don't care, but I think
> it helps reinforce the desired behavior. If nothing else, it also helps
> observers realize "huh, I've seen a bunch of rechecks about $reason
> lately, maybe we should look at that".

So, what happens with the script, when you add 2 comments, one: "network 
error during package install, let's try again" and the next message 

In my understanding, that would count as recheck without reason given.
(by the script). Maybe it's worth to document how to give a better proof 
that someone looked into the logs and tried to get to the root cause of 
a previous CI failure?

The other issue I see here is that with CI being flaky, chances seem to 
get better when doing a recheck.

An extreme example: 
required 8 rechecks, no changes in the patch itself, and no 
dependencies. The CI failed always in different checks.


More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list