Re: New ExecDB

2017-01-12 Thread Josef Skladanka
There's not been a huge amount of effort put to this - I've had other priorities ever since, but I can get back on it, if you feel it's the time to do it. The only code to work in that direction is here: https://bitbucket.org/fedoraqa/execdb/branch/feature/pony where I only basically started on rem

Re: New ExecDB

2017-01-09 Thread Tim Flink
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:16:04 +0200 Josef Skladanka wrote: > So, after a long discussion, we arrived to this solution. > > We will clearly split up the "who to notify" part, and "should we > re-schedule" part of the proposal. The party to notify will be stored > in the `notify` field, with `tasko

Re: New ExecDB

2016-10-21 Thread Josef Skladanka
So, after a long discussion, we arrived to this solution. We will clearly split up the "who to notify" part, and "should we re-schedule" part of the proposal. The party to notify will be stored in the `notify` field, with `taskotron, task, unknown` options. Initially any crashes in `shell` or `pyt

Re: New ExecDB

2016-10-12 Thread Kamil Paral
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Kamil Paral < kpa...@redhat.com > wrote: > > > Proposal looks good to me, I don't have any strong objections. > > > > > > 1. If you don't like blame: UNIVERSE, why not use blame: TESTBENCH? > > > > > > 2. I think that having enum values in details in crash s

Re: New ExecDB

2016-10-12 Thread Josef Skladanka
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: > Proposal looks good to me, I don't have any strong objections. > > 1. If you don't like blame: UNIVERSE, why not use blame: TESTBENCH? > 2. I think that having enum values in details in crash structure would be > better, but I don't have stron

Re: New ExecDB

2016-10-11 Thread Kamil Paral
> Proposal looks good to me, I don't have any strong objections. > 1. If you don't like blame: UNIVERSE, why not use blame: TESTBENCH? > 2. I think that having enum values in details in crash structure would be > better, but I don't have strong opinion either way. For consistency checking, yes. B

Re: New ExecDB

2016-10-11 Thread Kamil Paral
> With ResultsDB and Trigger rewrite done, I'd like to get started on ExecDB. > The current ExecDB is more of a tech-preview, that was to show that it's > possible to consume the push notifications from Buildbot. The thing is, that > the code doing it is quite a mess (mostly because the notificati

Re: New ExecDB

2016-10-11 Thread Jan Sedlak
Proposal looks good to me, I don't have any strong objections. 1. If you don't like blame: UNIVERSE, why not use blame: TESTBENCH? 2. I think that having enum values in details in crash structure would be better, but I don't have strong opinion either way. Jan

New ExecDB

2016-10-10 Thread Josef Skladanka
With ResultsDB and Trigger rewrite done, I'd like to get started on ExecDB. The current ExecDB is more of a tech-preview, that was to show that it's possible to consume the push notifications from Buildbot. The thing is, that the code doing it is quite a mess (mostly because the notifications are