On 2022/09/07 16:59:33 tison wrote: > > selecting which jobs to process > > Do you have a patch to implement this? IIRC it requires interacting with > outside service or at least we may add an ok-to-test label.
Very good idea, I didn't think that far ahead. It seems that Apache Spark has some solution since in the the-asf slack channel discussion it was mentioned that Spark requires contributors to run validation in their own personal GHA quota. I don't know how that is achieved. As you proposed, one possible solution would be to have a workflow that only proceeds when there's a "ok-to-test" label on the PR. For the immediate selection of jobs to process, I have ways to clear the GHA build queue for apache/pulsar using the GHA API. I clarified the proposed action plan in a follow up message to the thread [1]. We would primarily process PRs which help to get out of the situation where we are. It would also be helpful if there would be a way to escalate ASF INFRA support and GitHub Support. However, the ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23633 discussion doesn't give much hope of this possibility. -Lari [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rpq12tzm4hx8kozpkphd2jyqr8cj0yj5 On 2022/09/07 16:59:33 tison wrote: > > selecting which jobs to process > > Do you have a patch to implement this? IIRC it requires interacting with > outside service or at least we may add an ok-to-test label. > > Besides, it increases committers/PMC members' workload - be aware of it, or > most of contributions will stall. > > Best, > tison. > > > Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> 于2022年9月8日周四 00:47写道： > > > The problem with CI is becoming worse. The build queue is 235 jobs now and > > the queue time is over 7 hours. > > > > We will need to start shedding load in the build queue and get some fixes > > in. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23633 continues to contain > > details about some activities. I have created 2 GitHub Support tickets, but > > usually it takes up to a week to get a response. > > > > I have some assumptions about the issue, but they are just assumptions. > > One oddity is that when re-running failed jobs is used in a large > > workflow, the execution times for previously successful jobs get counted as > > if they have run. > > Here's an example: > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/actions/runs/3003787409/usage > > The reported usage is about 3x than the actual usage. > > The assumption that I have is that the "fairness algorithm" that GitHub > > uses to provide all Apache projects about the same amount of GitHub Actions > > resources would take this flawed usage as the basis of it's decisions. > > The reason why we are getting hit by this now is that there is a high > > number of flaky test failures that cause almost every build to fail and we > > are re-running a lot of builds. > > > > Another problem there is that the GitHub Actions search doesn't always > > show all workflow runs that are running. This has happened before when the > > GitHub Actions workflow search index was corrupted. GitHub Support resolved > > that by rebuilding the search index with some manual admin operation behind > > the scenes. > > > > I'm proposing that we start shedding load from CI by cancelling build jobs > > and selecting which jobs to process so that we get the CI issue resolved. > > We might also have to disable required checks so that we have some way to > > get changes merged while CI doesn't work properly. > > > > I'm expecting lazy consensus on fixing CI unless someone proposes a better > > plan. Let's keep everyone informed in this mailing list thread. > > > > -Lari > > > > > > On 2022/09/06 14:41:07 Dave Fisher wrote: > > > We are going to need to take actions to fix our problems. See > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23633?focusedCommentId=17600749&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17600749 > > > > > > Jarek has done a large amount of GitHub Action work with Apache Airflow > > and his suggestions might be helpful. One of his suggestions was Apache > > Yetus. I think he means using the Maven plugins - > > https://yetus.apache.org/documentation/0.14.0/yetus-maven-plugin/ > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 2022, at 4:48 AM, Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > The Apache Infra ticket is > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23633 . > > > > > > > > -Lari > > > > > > > > On 2022/09/06 11:36:46 Lari Hotari wrote: > > > >> I asked for an update on the Apache org GitHub Actions usage stats > > from Gavin McDonald on the-asf slack in this thread: > > https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CBX4TSBQ8/p1662464113873539?thread_ts=1661512133.913279&cid=CBX4TSBQ8 > > . > > > >> > > > >> I hope we get this issue resolved since it delays PR processing a lot. > > > >> > > > >> -Lari > > > >> > > > >> On 2022/09/06 11:16:07 Lari Hotari wrote: > > > >>> Pulsar CI continues to be congested, and the build queue [1] is very > > long at the moment. There are 147 build jobs in the queue and 16 jobs in > > progress at the moment. > > > >>> > > > >>> I would strongly advice everyone to use "personal CI" to mitigate > > the issue of the long delay of CI feedback. You can simply open a PR to > > your own personal fork of apache/pulsar to run the builds in your "personal > > CI". There's more details in the previous emails in this thread. > > > >>> > > > >>> -Lari > > > >>> > > > >>> [1] - build queue: > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/actions?query=is%3Aqueued > > > >>> > > > >>> On 2022/08/30 12:39:19 Lari Hotari wrote: > > > >>>> Pulsar CI continues to be congested, and the build queue is long. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I would strongly advice everyone to use "personal CI" to mitigate > > the issue of the long delay of CI feedback. You can simply open a PR to > > your own personal fork of apache/pulsar to run the builds in your "personal > > CI". There's more details in the previous email in this thread. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Some updates: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> There has been a discussion with Gavin McDonald from ASF infra on > > the-asf slack about getting usage reports from GitHub to support the > > investigation. Slack thread is the same one mentioned in the previous > > email, https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CBX4TSBQ8/p1661512133913279 . > > Gavin already requested the usage report in GitHub UI, but it produced > > invalid results. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I made a change to mitigate a source of additional GitHub Actions > > overhead. > > > >>>> In the past, each cherry-picked commit to a maintenance branch of > > Pulsar has triggered a lot of workflow runs. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The solution for cancelling duplicate builds automatically is to > > add this definition to the workflow definition: > > > >>>> concurrency: > > > >>>> group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.ref }} > > > >>>> cancel-in-progress: true > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I added this to all maintenance branch GitHub Actions workflows: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> branch-2.10 change: > > > >>>> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/5d2c9851f4f4d70bfe74b1e683a41c5a040a6ca7 > > > >>>> branch-2.9 change: > > > >>>> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3ea124924fecf636cc105de75c62b3a99050847b > > > >>>> branch-2.8 change: > > > >>>> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/48187bb5d95e581f8322a019b61d986e18a31e54 > > > >>>> branch-2.7: > > > >>>> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/744b62c99344724eacdbe97c881311869d67f630 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> branch-2.11 already contains the necessary config for cancelling > > duplicate builds. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The benefit of the above change is that when multiple commits are > > cherry-picked to a branch at once, only the build of the last commit will > > get run eventually. The builds for the intermediate commits will get > > cancelled. Obviously there's a tradeoff here that we don't get the > > information if one of the earlier commits breaks the build. It's the cost > > that we need to pay. Nevertheless our build is so flaky that it's hard to > > determine whether a failed build result is only caused by bad flaky test or > > whether it's an actual failure. Because of this we don't lose anything by > > cancelling builds. It's more important to save build resources. In the > > maintenance branches for 2.10 and older, the average total build time > > consumed is around 20 hours which is a lot. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> At this time, the overhead of maintenance branch builds doesn't > > seem to be the source of the problems. There must be some other issue which > > is possibly related to exceeding a usage quota. Hopefully we get the CI > > slowness issue solved asap. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> BR, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Lari > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 2022/08/26 12:00:20 Lari Hotari wrote: > > > >>>>> Hi, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> GitHub Actions builds have been piling up in the build queue in > > the last few days. > > > >>>>> I posted on bui...@apache.org > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/6lbqr0f6mqt9s8ggollp5kj2nv7rlo9s and > > created INFRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23633 > > about this issue. > > > >>>>> There's also a thread on the-asf slack, > > https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CBX4TSBQ8/p1661512133913279 . > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> It seems that our build queue is finally getting picked up, but it > > would be great to see if we hit quota and whether that is the cause of > > pauses. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Another issue is that the master branch broke after merging 2 > > conflicting PRs. > > > >>>>> The fix is in https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17300 . > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Merging PRs will be slow until we have these 2 problems solved and > > existing PRs rebased over the changes. Let's prioritize merging #17300 > > before pushing more changes. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I'd like to point out that a good way to get build feedback before > > sending a PR, is to run builds on your personal GitHub Actions CI. The > > benefit of this is that it doesn't consume the shared quota and builds > > usually start instantly. > > > >>>>> There are instructions in the contributors guide about this. > > > >>>>> https://pulsar.apache.org/contributing/#ci-testing-in-your-fork > > > >>>>> You simply open PRs to your own fork of apache/pulsar to run > > builds on your personal GitHub Actions CI. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> BR, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Lari > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
