[Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

Daniel Alley dalley at redhat.com
Thu Mar 8 19:14:29 UTC 2018 

+1, that sounds great.  It would alleviate a lot of issues with respect to
breakages.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> I want to introduce an ability to specify in the commit message for
> pulpcore a PR for pulp_file and a PR for pulp-smash. Travis would then
> checkout pulp_file from that PR and pulp-smash from that PR and test the
> pulpcore PR in combination with the 2 other PRs. This way we can test
> changes that require changes in multiple repositories. How does that sound?
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:48 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I set up the pulp_file tests to install pulp 3.0-dev (although we could
>> change this to nightly builds once those are being built):
>>
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/master/.travis/install.sh#L6
>>
>> In the situation you mentioned, we’d merge the PR to pulp and then rerun
>> the PR tests against the corresponding pulp_file PR. I’d like to make the
>> PR tests required in pulp_file (unless anyone objects).
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 pulpcore +0 pulp_file
>>>
>>> -1 Other plugins. I'm thinking about the situation where we need to fix
>>> a bug with a PR to pulpcore and to a plugin. How is the version of pulpcore
>>> determined for runnning the plugin tests? In the past, we used nightly
>>> builds, so plugins would have to wait 24 hours after pulpcore merge just to
>>> run the tests correctly. Even if the test runner checks out HEAD and runs
>>> against that, each plugin should choose to add this check at their own
>>> pace.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/02/2018 03:20 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I had neglected to write up the temporary enable/disable part of the
>>>> issue, so I just updated it here:  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3379
>>>>
>>>> In short, one of the pulp org owners (ipanova, ttereshc, rchan, jortel,
>>>> bmbouter) can temporarily enable/disable required checks. This issue would
>>>> also add this process to both the pulp2 and pulp3 docs.
>>>>
>>>> What do you all think about an idea like this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 to enabling checks for the 'pulp' and 'pulp_file' repos in Github
>>>>> with the ability to temporarily disable them. I wrote up this issue here to
>>>>> do that:  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3379
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should enable these because we have a human-enforced policy
>>>>> that expects failed checks to not be merged, but in practice code that is
>>>>> merged breaks things that quality checks also identified. I think Pulp
>>>>> would benefit from a stronger pre-merge enforcement of our existing checks.
>>>>> In the case where our quality checks are failing, I'm hoping we can focus
>>>>> on fixing them before continuing on with the merge in all but exceptional
>>>>> cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +0 on required github-enforcement, +1 to a strict human-enforced
>>>>>> policy about tests passing for PR merges
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reason being, an issue has occurred which would block valid PRs twice
>>>>>> within the last month.  The first being the test certs expiring on January
>>>>>> 25th, the second being when we switched the PR unittest runners over to new
>>>>>> versions of Fedora this morning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not against the idea by any means, I'm just not entirely
>>>>>> convinced that the exceptions requiring intervention will be very
>>>>>> infrequent, and I can imagine it leading to a fair amount of frustration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:34 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 to enabling the checks for the core pulp repos in Github. The
>>>>>>> only concern I have is that perhaps something happens outside of our
>>>>>>> control (e.g. Travis goes down) and we can’t merge PRs. In those cases
>>>>>>> though, we can temporarily disable checks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I want to adjust my proposal to only be for core, and not a
>>>>>>>> requirement for any plugin. I think the plugin policy is something the
>>>>>>>> committers should decide along with their users. I overall believe enabling
>>>>>>>> these kinds of checks is a good idea so I encourage plugins do it. We
>>>>>>>> should make sure each team has a github admin in place who could make such
>>>>>>>> a change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like option 1, which to retell my understanding means that we'll
>>>>>>>> enable github to require the checks to pass and you can't merge or push
>>>>>>>> without them passing. Is that good, would there be any -1's for a change on
>>>>>>>> core like this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To share my perspective about plugins being in the Pulp
>>>>>>>> organization, they are there only for a clear association with Pulp on
>>>>>>>> github. Any open source plugin that creates value with Pulp and does it
>>>>>>>> with a debatable level of responsibility towards its users I think is
>>>>>>>> probably ok to include. I don't expect them to give up any control or
>>>>>>>> autonomy if they do that. The benefit of bringing these different plugin
>>>>>>>> communities closer together through the organization is hopefully towards
>>>>>>>> common services like automated testing and such over time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Milan Kovacik <mkovacik at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > Option 1:  Nothing merges without passing PR runner tests, ever,
>>>>>>>>> even if the issue is rooted in the configuration or infrastructure of the
>>>>>>>>> test runners or an expired certificate etc.  This would light a fire to get
>>>>>>>>> these issues resolved ASAP because nothing can happen without them.
>>>>>>>>> I like this option for the same reasons Daniel mentioned; it also
>>>>>>>>> implies an up-to-date infrastructure and better reliability: both false
>>>>>>>>> negative and false positive (test/build) failures will still happen in all
>>>>>>>>> the three options regardless, but at least false negatives won't be ignored.
>>>>>>>>> This might also help catching environment issues sooner in the
>>>>>>>>> process (such as a third-party library update causing a legitimate failure
>>>>>>>>> because of e.g backwards incompatibility).
>>>>>>>>> When it comes to plugin independence, we could state that only
>>>>>>>>> plugins conforming with these (core) PR criteria can be "adopted" and
>>>>>>>>> tagged as Pulp-approved/compatible and kept under the Pulp project.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> milan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy, I don't think David was continuing our line of discussion
>>>>>>>>>> on policy, but rather rebutting the original idea that Github's "required
>>>>>>>>>> checks" be enforced for all plugins.  That goes back to the whole
>>>>>>>>>> difference between having a policy that requires green tests and making it
>>>>>>>>>> physically impossible to merge PRs without them.  Maybe some plugins want a
>>>>>>>>>> policy and some plugins are fine with hard required checks on Github, but
>>>>>>>>>> the latter shouldn't be enforced on everyone - is what I think David was
>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, my understanding is that pulp_deb is not strictly under our
>>>>>>>>>> control, but that we're hosting it specifically to let misa use our QA
>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure, and because we might want to productise it at some point in
>>>>>>>>>> the future.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Jeremy Audet <jaudet at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > Regarding the plugin repos, last year we talked about plugins
>>>>>>>>>>> being completely autonomous (aside from abiding by our Code of Conduct).
>>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn’t setting the required checks for projects like pulp_file,
>>>>>>>>>>> pulp_python, pulp_deb, etc violate this autonomy? In other words, shouldn’t
>>>>>>>>>>> we let plugin teams decide their own policy and what checks to enable?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are pulp_file, pulp_python, pulp_deb, and so on autonomous
>>>>>>>>>>> projects? The fact that they're hosted on GitHub under the pulp
>>>>>>>>>>> organization [1] indicates that they're under our control. Since they're
>>>>>>>>>>> under our control, we get to set the rules. If any of these projects really
>>>>>>>>>>> are autonomous, then somebody please kick them out of the pulp organization.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I was writing paychecks to a team of devs, and they refused
>>>>>>>>>>> to adopt basic QA processes for their projects, I'd happily fire the entire
>>>>>>>>>>> dev team. I can't be the only one who's had this thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/pulp
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing listPulp-dev at redhat.comhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180308/27e7d732/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list