We are close to the finish, but we've hit some GH limitations with Tobiasz. It turned out that the re-run workflow API ( https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/rest/reference/actions#re-run-a-workflow) has an undocumented feature :) - it only allows to re-run failed runs, but it does not work on successful ones. This only works for manual re-runs from the UI, but not via API. This is a requested feature ( https://github.community/t/is-it-possible-to-manually-force-an-action-workflow-to-be-re-run/2127/22) but we cannot wait for it.
We thought about it and slept over it and since we cannot wait for it we thought about a bit different approach which we are implementing: When PR gets its approval, it will automatically get the "okay to test" label and a comment inviting to rebasing the PR or re-running the tests and explaining why. We will also experiment with adding an extra "check" that will mark the PR as still "in-progress" in this case so that it is obvious that the PR is not yet "completely" tested. Later we will skip all that for the doc-only PRs that do not require tests at all. Let us know if you have any thoughts about it. J, On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 12:28 PM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: > I am happy with "okay to test" / "run tests" . > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 10:13 Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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/> >> >> -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
