BTW. the Action from Tobiasz is already out there :) - he just adds the comment/check option now: https://github.com/TobKed/label-when-approved-action/ :D
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 8:27 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > I think having a test/check status they shows in progress until approved > is actually a good thing - it makes it more explicit that there are more > tests to come. > > On 27 October 2020 07:22:00 GMT, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> 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/> >> >> -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
