Re: new procedure with GitLab CI

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Sonntag, den 24.05.2020, 13:19 +0100 schrieb James Lowe:
> On 24/05/2020 12:09, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> > You should see it at the individual MR, can you check
> > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/82
> > ?
> 
> I am still not certain. Sorry to be a pain here.
> 
> !83 and !84 show me no pipeline has been run yet the patches are on the 
> list to test.

The reason is that the branch in !83 is based on a commit 6 days ago,
before we had CI. This needs a rebase before it's tested.

However, the scripts are working as intended:
---
 $ ./countdown.py --testing
No patches for testing right now!
---

That is even though the MR is in Patch::new. See also below.

> !81 has just now changed from 'unable to get pipeline information' to 
> looking like it has passed

Yes (thanks Hosoda-san!)

> So, and you didn't answer this specific question, if I set the label to 
> 'review' before the pipeline runs will make doc still run?

Sorry: Yes, CI pipelines will run irrespective of the labels.

> and if it does and it fails will the label change so it doesn't stay in the 
> county 
> down.

I will take care of this until I've automated it.


> I know we're still finding our feet here, but I need a relatively 'fire 
> and forget' method that doesn't have me hunting around the very busy 
> interface (I have a harder time compared to Allura/Rietveld following 
> discussions nested in amongst a lot of other noise I don't care about).

See above, the --testing flag should do.

> Perhaps we need another 'patch' label, i.e. Patch::new = Patch merged 
> but not doc tested rather than what it is at the moment. Then they can 
> be listed but I don't test them for make check. Then we have a 
> Patch::passed kind of label that I do test and then it moves to 'review' 
> etc.

Dan also proposed this. My argument against this is that GitLab will
test every commit, irrespective of the label (see above). In particular
it will also run the tests on rebase without a diff change where we
have decided _not_ to change the label.
On failure, the mode is pretty clear: It should go back to needs_work.
But what if a patch in countdown is rebased (without a diff) and is
currently running? Should it be put back to Patch::new and afterwards
skip the labels until Patch::countdown? That sounds very confusing to
me...

Jonas

> 
> That way I know for certain which patches to test and everyone else can 
> see if their patch is in the pipeline or not.
> 
> James
> 
>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part