> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:58, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:46 AM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:42, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And why do you guys think about raisin the history to 30 at least
>>> platform pipeline jobs?
>>
>> We need to first check if we have enough disk space first, it’s going to
>> consume a lot of it.
>
> ci.xwiki.org currently use 393G (total, not just Jenkins) and have
> 1.3T available. I check a few history entries of xwiki-platform master
> and the scale seems to be about 70M (90% of which is the log file)
> with something like 10 failing tests so I think we are safe for a
> little while
I hope so because I remember that I had to remove twice the logs for jenkins
over the summer. It’s a different problem but both use up disk space.
We need to fix the log issue BTW.
Thanks
-Vincent
>
>>
>> Also, we would need to monitor closely for perf issues and roll it back if
>> it doesn’t go well.
>
> Of course but that's easy.
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:39 AM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:35, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:32 AM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6 Sep 2019, at 10:27, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/09/2019 17:40, Simon Urli wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/09/2019 17:24, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> reopening this thread since I started to close some flicker issues as
>>>>>>>>>> part of BFD and got comments for those.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So the last mails on this threads suggested to close the flicker
>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>> if we didn't manage to reproduce them locally after a repeated tests,
>>>>>>>>>> and that we didn't see them after a while.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We didn't vote for those suggestion and I assumed a bit quick that I
>>>>>>>>>> could close some flicker issues that I personally don't remember
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> on the CI after having tested them locally.
>>>>>>>>>> My point for doing that is the same as for the first mail I posted on
>>>>>>>>>> this thread: those flickers are old, and the code did change enough
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> those to be fixed in a way or another.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Being old does not always means the code leading to those failures
>>>>>>>>> changed that much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now I might be completely wrong, and the flicker to happen again,
>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>> don't think it's a problem since we can really easily open back the
>>>>>>>>>> issues if it's the case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The other solution IMO is to indeed keep the issue open and in fact
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> never really close them, because we just don't have time to
>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>> each of them properly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I really don't see any value of keeping things open and don't act on
>>>>>>>>>> them, that's why I suggest to close them after doing the checks we
>>>>>>>>>> suggested before:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. try to repeat locally the failure;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is totally useless IMO unless you make sure that your computer is
>>>>>>>>> made super slow some way since that's the reason for most of the
>>>>>>>>> flickering tests.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. check that we didn't encounter those flickers since last cycle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This one is enough for me but the hard part is to knowing that.
>>>>>>>> Ok, so the proposal is now to check only the age since last time we
>>>>>>>> saw them of the open flickers before closing them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So first question, do we all agree on that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then for the second check, Vincent suggested to add some tooling: it
>>>>>>>>>> will be best, but it takes time to do. So on the meantime, as Thomas
>>>>>>>>>> also suggested, we could add a check in the release plan to create or
>>>>>>>>>> update all jira issues that concerns flickers. It would allow us to
>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>> some information about the liveness of our flickers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So second question, do you agree on that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Depends what it exactly means. Have some dedicated jira field to
>>>>>>>>> indicate when you saw it last ? Comment that you just saw that test
>>>>>>>>> failing again ?
>>>>>>>> My suggestion was about a dedicated JIRA field if possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, ok if I create a new custom field in JIRA for flickers, called
>>>>>>> "Date of last failure for flicker”?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t see how it’ll help since it’ll never be up to date, and the old
>>>>>> value will remain making us think it’s not been flickering for a long
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my mind the idea is not so much to use this field as a criteria to
>>>>> close an issue but as a criteria to not close it.
>>>>
>>>> ok, as long as we don’t use it for closing, I’m fine :)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
