andygrove opened a new pull request, #6000:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/pull/6000

   ## Which issue does this PR close?
   
   Relates to #5999. It does not close it: that issue is about fixing the Miri 
job, this documents how
   to notice a job in that state in the first place.
   
   - [Rendered page — CI 
guide](https://github.com/andygrove/datafusion-comet/blob/docs-scheduled-ci-health/docs/source/contributor-guide/ci.md#checking-that-the-scheduled-runs-are-healthy)
   - [Rendered page — release 
process](https://github.com/andygrove/datafusion-comet/blob/docs-scheduled-ci-health/docs/source/contributor-guide/release_process.md#release-preparation)
   
   ## Rationale for this change
   
   After #5939 and #5963, most of our coverage of the non-default Spark and 
Iceberg versions runs in
   the nightly tier rather than on pull requests. That was the right trade for 
cost, but it moves a
   lot of signal onto a schedule, and a scheduled run has no pull request to 
turn red. `ci.yml` has a
   `nightly_report` job that opens a `ci-nightly-failure` issue, so that tier 
is covered. `miri.yml`
   and `publish_snapshot.yml` have no such step — and both are currently broken 
without anyone having
   noticed. Miri has failed 79 nights running (#5999) and the nightly SNAPSHOT 
publish has never
   succeeded since it landed in #5902, failing with a 401 against 
repository.apache.org.
   
   There is also a subtler failure I could not find documented anywhere. For 
`ci.yml`, a green
   `Required Checks` does not mean the nightly suites ran. The path filters and 
the diff base are both
   allowed to select nothing, which is correct on a documentation-only day, but 
a run that tested
   nothing is indistinguishable from a run that tested everything if you only 
look at the verdict. If
   the diff base ever drifts, the nightly goes green forever while testing 
nothing.
   
   I checked the nightly tier itself and it is working — the 2026-09-16 and 
2026-09-17 runs each
   completed about 40 Spark SQL and Iceberg suite jobs, with shards running 25 
to 67 minutes, and the
   second run correctly resolved its diff base to the first run's head. So this 
PR is documentation
   only; there is nothing to fix in the tier.
   
   ## What changes are included in this PR?
   
   A new "Checking that the scheduled runs are healthy" section in the CI 
contributor guide, listing
   the four schedules and which of them report their own failures, with a `gh 
api` loop over the three
   daily ones and guidance on reading the output for the two distinct failures 
— a schedule that
   stopped firing versus a streak of red nights. It also gives a second command 
that counts the
   nightly's suite jobs by conclusion, so "green because everything passed" can 
be told apart from
   "green because nothing ran."
   
   The release process gets a checklist item and a paragraph under Release 
Preparation pointing at
   that section, so this gets looked at once per release rather than only when 
someone happens to
   wonder.
   
   The documented commands use `gh api` rather than `gh run list 
--event=schedule`. The latter is not
   reliable: while investigating this it omitted that morning's `ci.yml` 
scheduled run entirely, and
   on another call returned three-week-old `miri.yml` runs as the latest three.
   
   ## How are these changes tested?
   
   Documentation only, so no tests. Every command in the new section was run 
against the live
   repository and produced the output the surrounding text describes. `prettier 
--check` and
   `python3 dev/ci/check-ci-config.py` both pass.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to