[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new procedure with GitLab CI
From: |
Jonas Hahnfeld |
Subject: |
Re: new procedure with GitLab CI |
Date: |
Sun, 24 May 2020 13:09:24 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.36.2 |
Am Sonntag, den 24.05.2020, 11:41 +0100 schrieb James Lowe:
> OK. Using Masamichi's MR as an example (nothing personal Hosoda-san!) I
> saw that his MR !81 came up via countdown.py - I am using the latest
> update of this BTW - so looking at this MR via the web I could not tell
> if this had done its make doc or not.
>
> A few mins later I saw your email/update in the ticket to Hosoda-san and
> and I can also see a new commit/MR update in the same thread and that
> !81 still appears in the countdown.py list.
>
> So has this done a make doc or not? I am still unsure at this point.
I can't tell you for sure either. It could be that the fork at
https://gitlab.com/trueroad/lilypond has Pipelines enabled, but only
visible to project members. Hosoda-san, could you check this in your
project? The drop-down is at Settings > General > Visibility ... >
Pipelines. I'm guessing here, could be something else...
Because the jobs appear to have run, see the green check at the commit
view: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/81/commits
That's also what the API tells, but we don't see the logs 😞
> See: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/pipelines (as of 11:25BST anyway)
>
> It has (had) no mention of !81 and I cannot see anything in the thread
> that says it has passed make doc.
I think this is because pipelines for merge requests run in the context
of the forked project, see
https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/merge_request_pipelines/index.html#important-notes-about-merge-requests-from-forked-projects
FWIW the same happens for my merge requests, see the page at
https://gitlab.com/hahnjo/lilypond/pipelines
> So now I am unsure what to do, because if I run my new set of tests I
> *won't* be doing make doc, and if I change this MR to Patch::review and
> it hasn't had a make doc, then it will go through the countdown not
> tested properly right?
>
>
> Q1. What cases will I get a false positive with countdown.py if a MR has
> not had a make doc done - this seems, at the moment to be user-error prone.
>
> Q2. How can I be sure (at least for the first few dozen or so patch
> tests) that the MR really has done the make doc via CI? (i.e. without
> the script) should I see the MR in that URL I listed above?
You should see it at the individual MR, can you check
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/82
?
> Q3. How does user know that his patch has failed the make doc (and that
> I won't have even tested it) I assume this is because the patch will get
> set back to 'needs_work' (and they'll get notified)?
The user gets an email that the pipeline failed. Setting to
'needs_work' is currently manual (me), but I'll make sure to also put a
comment in the thread.
Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- new procedure with GitLab CI, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/05/23
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, James Lowe, 2020/05/23
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/05/24
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, James Lowe, 2020/05/24
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI,
Jonas Hahnfeld <=
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, Masamichi Hosoda, 2020/05/24
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, James Lowe, 2020/05/24
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/05/24
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, James Lowe, 2020/05/24
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/05/24
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, David Kastrup, 2020/05/24
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/05/24
- Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, David Kastrup, 2020/05/25
Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, Dan Eble, 2020/05/23
Re: new procedure with GitLab CI, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/05/27