Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Great Job. Would be really helpful. Regards, Kshiteej On Wed, 25 Mar, 2020, 7:29 AM Chaitanya Bapat, wrote: > Yes Denisa, you can use it on existing PRs as well. Sorry for miswording. > > Bot will comment instructions on how-to-use for every new PR. > You can invoke bot for all the PRs. > > >

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Yes Denisa, you can use it on existing PRs as well. Sorry for miswording. Bot will comment instructions on how-to-use for every new PR. You can invoke bot for all the PRs. On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 18:00, Denisa Roberts wrote: > Hi- Only for new PRs? Can I use it for an existing PR to retrigger

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Hello MXNet community, Update: Bot has been deployed  on apache/incubator-mxnet. For every new PR, bot will comment with a help message (instructing what command to comment) It can trigger all jobs or specific jobs for users. Do use and if you find issues/suggestions do comment on this mail

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Thank you Chaitanya and Marco for helping the MXNet community. On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:56 PM Marco de Abreu wrote: > Sure, already done. > > -Marco > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:53 PM Chaitanya Bapat > wrote: > > > Hello, > > Update: Apache Infra Ticket for MXNet Bot > > Thanks once again,

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Sure, already done. -Marco On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:53 PM Chaitanya Bapat wrote: > Hello, > Update: Apache Infra Ticket for MXNet Bot > Thanks once again, Marco for opening the ticket. But turns out, Apache > Infra folks closed it stating: "Security concerns around allowing unknown > person

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Hello, Update: Apache Infra Ticket for MXNet Bot Thanks once again, Marco for opening the ticket. But turns out, Apache Infra folks closed it stating: "Security concerns around allowing unknown person to submit PR and run our hardware". Furthermore, it goes onto state that bot circumvents the

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Hello, the ticket has been created: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-20005 Best regards, Marco On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:49 PM Marco de Abreu wrote: > Sounds like a good plan! > > Please send me the URL (please make sure it's backed by DNS and not just > the gateway URL) of the

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Sounds like a good plan! Please send me the URL (please make sure it's backed by DNS and not just the gateway URL) of the webhook handler, GitHub events you're interested in and the shared secret in a private email to my personal email address. I will then create the ticket with Apache infra.

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

@Marco Alright, it makes total sense to test out the Bot feature alongside auto-trigger as a transition. Path Forward: 1. Setup MXNet Bot on apache/incubator-mxnet repo (GitHub WebHook and Infra) 2. We don't turn off automatic trigger of PR builds for now. 3. Hopefully, bot is used by developers

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Hi, that's correct. But as stated previously, it's not an option to remove the hook. For now, I'd like to see how the system behaves while it's optional. Later on, we can talk about revisiting this decision. But to me it's not an option to deploy an entirely new system and approach without having

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Hey Marco, I thought currently every commit on PR and master triggers CI because a. github webhook points to Jenkins Server b. GH Webhook events trigger builds on Jenkins for all commits to any branch in apache/incubator-mxnet may it be master/PR/non-PR Reason: Because all the 3 types of branches

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Thanks Chai, sounds good to me. Could you elaborate a bit on the point about triggering a CI run after the PR has been merged? We already to that automatically for the master, so what's the benefit to do it twice? -Marco Chaitanya Bapat schrieb am Mi., 18. März 2020, 09:30: > Update: > > > we

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Update: > we can ensure that all CI runs ran on the commit that will be merged @Sam Skalicky Branch Protection is added to public MXNet repo. It ensures that for every PR to be merged, the CI passes. All the jobs selected "required" jobs will have to be green for the PR to be merged. Ofcourse,

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Well that's generally a problem with a deferred CI approach (CI is run at commit and not at merge time). This can either be solved through the other proposal that's currently on dev@, by having a bot which does merges by having a global lock and a merge queue or by accepting the issue. Reality

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

We probably need some way to track which CI runs ran for which commit too, that way we can ensure that all CI runs ran on the commit that will be merged. Maybe the bot can comment with the commit hash when users command it to do something. Although since users can trigger individual CI runs

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

I personally like the idea of opt-in more than opt-out: - ultimately PR author wants the PR to be merged so they (or committer reviewing the PR) will trigger the CI - if it is easy to trigger the PR via the bot command then the amount of work per PR should be less than with opt-out (since most

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Hi, since it's no longer necessary to push a new commit to trigger CI, it will already reduce the costs. But to me, requiring an action to enable CI after a PR has been created initially, is a no go. User can opt out of CI, but the default has to be CI being triggered automatically for every

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Firstly, Sorry I missed out on attaching the mail thread that was sent on 12th February for notifying the community of the upcoming changes to the MXNet CI For reference : https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r09a6ab2803a996fc80e00fe39ed312fa4865e8805e08df847f1addad%40%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

I'd recommend that the bot makes an initial comment when a PR gets opened and informs the users of its commands. It then tells the user the commend to opt out of CI. -Marco Lausen, Leonard schrieb am Fr., 13. März 2020, 20:27: > On opt-out: People may be unaware of opt-out would not use it.

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

On opt-out: People may be unaware of opt-out would not use it. There is no incentive to use opt-out, as the PR author doesn't pay any money for CI run. I agree with Marco though that opt-in alone may cause usability issues, as contributors may not be aware of how to trigger the CI. One solution

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Thanks for the data Sandeep. In these cases it sounds like it would have rather been better when people explicitly turned off CI in that case. What's the argument against an opt-out instead of an opt-in? My intention is that I consider it quite cumbersome to make it a *required* step to always

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

I tried to gather some data for us to discuss this topic in this thread. I tried to count number of un-necessary builds by looking at most recent (as of 12, March 9 PM PST) 50 PRs merged to master and 50 PRs. Identifying un-necessary builds is bit subjective. I tried to be more conservative where

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Is it possible for re-triggering a single job to be abused? For example, the author spends two days re-triggering a flaky job to make it pass. But other jobs which have passed the validation may be broken by other commits during the two day without being noticed. And finally the PR is merged with

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

In the end it only comes down to money, considering that the system is auto scaling, making the execution time constant. If we're trading money for usability, I certainly would prefer usability. I'd rather recommend to spend time on parallelizing test execution or getting rid of integration tests

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Btw you forgot to set a date and time for the metting On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:18 PM Marco de Abreu wrote: > Thanks Chai, I generally like the idea of the bot. But I'm not a supporter > of the idea to disable any automatic triggering (disabling the webhook is > also not an option,

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Thanks Chai, I generally like the idea of the bot. But I'm not a supporter of the idea to disable any automatic triggering (disabling the webhook is also not an option, considering that this will disable master triggers). The CI system has to support the community without requiring people to

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Chai, Awesome work. When do we expect this bot to be deployed? Best, Lin On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 2:00 PM Chaitanya Bapat wrote: > Hello MXNet community, > > I have built an MXNet Bot that allows PR > Authors, Committers and Jenkins Admins to trigger CI

MXNet Bot Demo

Hello MXNet community, I have built an MXNet Bot that allows PR Authors, Committers and Jenkins Admins to trigger CI manually. It handles 2 problems 1. Manual CI trigger instead of existing automated CI trigger 2. Gives permissions to PR Authors (in addition to