Kamil - "Ready for review" is not good - it must have been reviewed already because it has at least one approval.
Ash - I am ok with "okay to test" :). Hard to mistake it with anything else and serves the purpose well :) Any other opinions/voices :)? I already have the PRs to enable it in review, and we work with Tobiasz on auto-labeling action so hopefully today/tomorrow we can get it up and running. J On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:08 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > How about "okay to test" -- that's often the "command" that people use for > test approval (thinking of Jenkins Github integration, where you can say > "ready to test" to do this exact purpose). > > -ash > > On Oct 26 2020, at 10:06 am, Kamil Breguła <[email protected]> > wrote: > > what do you think about "Ready for review"? > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 11:04 Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:53 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is "ready to merge" also going to automatically merge if tests are green? > > > Not at all. It was never the intention. Committers still need to merge it > manually. The difference is that you will see the "Ready to Marge" label > and "green" (hopefully) merge button, you will know that the "full set" of > tests was successful. > > I am also not sure if "Ready to Merge" is best name though. I've been > thinking about this but think it could be simply "All test", "Full test > set" ... or simply maybe "Ready for all tests"*.* > > I think the last one is best ("Ready for all tests") > > J. > > > > I think it shouldn't unless we also remove that label on a new push to the > branch - consider this: > > - PR is reviewed and approved and a simple change, committer reviews > it and gives it an approval; tests currently running > > > - Label is applied > - While tests are running PR author pushes malicious code > - Tests for this new push pass and it's automatically merged. > > > Because of this I think "ready to merge" is actually the wrong name as it > conveys extra meaning that we want to avoid. (And I also don't want to > remove approvals when pushing, there are many many cases where it's just a > small change requested, and we give approval with "make this change; I'm > pre-emptively approving it") > > -ash > > On Oct 24 2020, at 8:49 pm, Daniel Imberman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think ready to merge makes more sense > > via Newton Mail > <https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.51&pv=10.15.6&source=email_footer_2> > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 12:13 PM, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Some short update - seems like we can get 50% 60% saving in job usage by > the "unapproved PRs". We are progressing with implementation :D. > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 10:55 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > FYI. We found out with Tobiasz, that it will be a bit better and if we add > "*Approved*" label in the PR that the workflow will automatically set > when the issue gets approved. > > This way we have state of the PR approval (we know when it changes) and > know that we should re-run last "small matrix" successful run when the > label changes to "Approved". > > This will also be an additional indication to committers in case of queues > and delays we se. It might be that the "small" matrix run is already > successful, the PR gets approved but the "full matrix build" is delayed due > to queuing. Such PR will have green "merge" button and might get merged by > mistake - but it will not have the "Approved" label yet. Setting the label > and re-running the build will happen at the same time. > > But I start thinking this label should be named differently - how about > "*Ready > to merge*" maybe? Or maybe other ideas? > > J. > > > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 1:10 AM Daniel Imberman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > +1000! > > via Newton Mail > <https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.51&pv=10.15.6&source=email_footer_2> > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 8:22 AM, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks Tobiasz :). fantastic. > > I prepared a very short and simple design doc > https://docs.google.com/document/d/16rwyCfyDpKWN-DrLYbhjU0B1D58T1RFYan5ltmw4DQg/edit# > where > we can collaborate. > > I also added you as collaborator to > https://github.com/potiuk/get-workflow-origin that we already use, and I > think you can update the "get workflow origin" plugin to include status of > the PR in the output of the action (ore maybe we find out that we already > have what we need in GitHub context). > > I will take a look at finding out how/if we can trigger the "full build" > automatically when approval status changes from "Not approved" to > "Approved". > > J. > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:20 PM Tobiasz Kędzierski < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jarek. > > sounds good to me. I am happy to help you as much as I can with it. > > BR > Tobiasz > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 9:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > *TLDR; I thought about it a bit and I have a proposal on how to solve it > even better - one that can be implemented over the weekend (I volunteer :) > ) and that can be very easily shared and adopted by the other ASF projects > so that we all collectively decrease the strain on Github Actions.* > > This is in parallel to our efforts on having self-hosted workers of > course, but I think it will be needed anyway. Let me put it in a bit of > context > > *Problem statement:* > > * the root cause of the problem is that we are competing with many other > projects of ASF for the 180 jobs. I have started the discussion in > [email protected] about this: > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r1708881f52adbdae722afb8fea16b23325b739b254b60890e72375e1%40%3Cbuilds.apache.org%3E > and > it's clear all ASF projects using GA have the same problem and compete > against each other for the jobs. > * if we decrease the strain on our side, this is not solving the problem > long term. We keep on doing it already, and we already decrease a lot of > strain, but other projects from ASF increase their strain in the meantime > (Apache Beam, Skywalking, and few other projects are becoming heavy GitHub > Actions users). > * in all the projects that I looked at, we have the same root cause. > Matrix strategy of builds causes enormous strain on Github Actions if the > whole matrix is run for all PRs. We are going to make it works sustainably > only if we come up with an easy solution, that can be applied to all those > projects. > * I think the comment-based PR triggering process is complex and > cumbersome to follow. It puts a LOT more effort on the committers because > they not only have to review and comment on the PRs but also make decisions > that those PRs are ready for "full build". This is a lot of unnecessary > effort and complicated process that many of the ASF projects will not like > to adopt > > *Proposed Solution:* > > *Add an easy way to limit the matrix strategy to one "default" combo for > PRs THAT HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY COMMITTERS YET* > > This can be easily done with Github Actions workflows - no need to write a > bot for this. > > *Some details:* > > * Custom GitHub Action (generic) that checks if the PRs are approved by > Committers (and no "disapprovals"). The action would produce an output -> > "Approved", "Not approved". The output could be used to determine the > matrix strategy scope (in our case we already have support for dynamic > matrix strategy that I added a few weeks ago - so it's just a matter of > wiring the output in). > * Very small workflow with the same GithubAction run on > "pull_request_target" event. That workflow would effective "observe" the > PR, and when the status changes from "not approved" to "approved", it > triggers a PR build (with the "full matrix strategy" this time because the > PR will be already approved). This seems to be entirely possible. This > "pull_request_target" workflow - similarly to "workflow_run" runs with a > "write" access token and uses a "main branch" workflow version and it could > easily trigger a rerun of the last PR build in such case. > > *Benefits:* > > - I think I could write such an action over the coming weekend (happy to > collaborate with anyone on that). I will first search if someone has done > something similar of course because maybe it can be done faster this way, > but I am quite confident after writing my > https://github.com/potiuk/cancel-workflow-runs which we already use to > limit the strain that it is doable in a day/two > - no need to change the process we have - we continue working as we did > and simply "approved" PRs will be the full matrix strategy ones but the > "not-approved-ones" will run a limited version of the checks. > - no way to accidentally submit a breaking PR - when the committer > approves the PR that has not been approved before, the PR build will be > re-run with the "full matrix strategy" and not mergeable until it finishes > - last-but-not-least: we can propose (and help) other ASF projects to use > the action in their own GitHub Actions. It will not be changing anyone's > process - which makes it super-easy to adopt and I can even turn it into a > "recommended solution" by Apache Infra - similarly as Airflow's CI > architecture is a recommended solution already for the integration of GA > with DockerHub > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/Github+Actions+to+DockerHub > > WDYT? > > J > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 7:59 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think it's a good idea, but I'd augment it a bit. A better option will > be to run all test types but > for only one chosen combination of "Python + DB type + DB version". > > I often don't even look at the PR until the tests pass and this would be > much better this way. > And often people have slower/small machines so they submit the PR to see > if they have not > broken any other tests. This is much, much easier than doing it locally - > because then in one > "fire&forget" you can run static, doc, unit tests, integration, and > Kubernetes ones,. And it's a valid > thing. > > Also, we have to make sure that such PR does not become "Green" before all > the tests are run. > This might be rather problematic as Github does not yet have a " manual" > Approval step in > Github Actions (it's coming in Q4: > https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/99). > > We have many tests and already we hit a bug a few times, where not all > tests have yet started > and we've merged such PR. I can imagine it will happen more and more often > if all PRs will > only run a subset of tests. It will be very easy to make that mistake > because even if we run a subset of > those tests, we have so many jobs that you cannot see them all in the > GitHub UI. > > So we will have to have a check that fails the PR but marks it somehow as > "Ready for review" for example adding > a label "Ready for review" when the subset of tests succeeds. > > Also, this might not be needed (or less important) if we implement: > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10507 "Selective Tests" > for which I have an open PR. They will give much bigger improvements - > because, in the vast majority of cases, the tests will take > very little time - giving feedback > about relevant tests in a few minutes rather than half-an-hour. We can > also combine those two. > > It seems that I managed to finish some of the stuff that I thought will > take more time, so I might come back to it next week > if it goes as well as I planned. > > J. > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 3:57 AM Daniel Imberman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I’m not too worried about that. I think people would learn pretty quickly. > It hasn’t been an issue for the kubernetes community so I can’t imagine it > being an issue for us. End-of-day, we only have a limited amount of compute > power and this will increase the speed we merge the PR’s that have passed > basic code quality checks. > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:19 PM, Tomasz Urbaszek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think I can agree. Especially with flaky tests, some contributors may be > confused that some of the tests don't work on CI but work locally... > > Checking the code quality is good first step. Once there's a review we can > start tests on CI. > > On the other hand, I can see people asking for starting the tests or being > even more confused why some PRs have more CI builds than others... > > Cheers, > Tomek > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:29 PM Daniel Imberman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello all, > > With the recent uptick in airflow contribution and pull requests, I have a > proposal that I hope will ensure that we do not find ourselves in a CI > backlog hell. I noticed that on the Kubernetes project, pull requests do > not run integration test until a committer submits a "ready to test" > command to the CI bot. This step can prevent draft PRs or un-reviewed PRs > from taking github CI resources. It is worth noting that with breeze's > docker based testing system, users have the exact same testing capabilities > locally as they would on our CI. > > I propose that we allow unverified PR's to run basic and static tests, but > not perform the full test suite or integration test without first being > reviewed. > > What does everyone think? > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
