QA is back, who wants to review patches?

QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Christopher Baines]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1160 bytes --]

Hey!

After substitute availability taking a bit of a dive recently, the
bordeaux build farm has finally caught back up and QA is back submitting
builds for packages changed by patches.

QA also has a feature to allow easily tagging patches (issues) as having
been reviewed and ready to merge (reviewed-looks-good). You can do this
via sending an email and QA has a form ("Mark patches as reviewed") on
the page for each issue to help you do this.

I'd encourage anyone and everyone to review patches, there's no burden
on you to spot every problem and you don't need any special
knowledge. You just need to not be involved (so you can't review your
own patches) and take a good look at the changes, mentioning any
questions that you have or problems that you spot. If you think the
changes look good to be merged, you can tag the issue accordingly.

When issues are tagged as reviewed-looks-good, QA will display them in
dark green at the top of the list of patches, so it's on those with
commit access to prioritise looking at these issues and merging the
patches if indeed they are ready.

Let me know if you have any comments or questions!

Thanks,

Chris

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Clément Lassieur]

On Fri, Feb 09 2024, Christopher Baines wrote:

> After substitute availability taking a bit of a dive recently, the
> bordeaux build farm has finally caught back up and QA is back submitting
> builds for packages changed by patches.
>
> QA also has a feature to allow easily tagging patches (issues) as having
> been reviewed and ready to merge (reviewed-looks-good). You can do this
> via sending an email and QA has a form ("Mark patches as reviewed") on
> the page for each issue to help you do this.
>
> I'd encourage anyone and everyone to review patches, there's no burden
> on you to spot every problem and you don't need any special
> knowledge. You just need to not be involved (so you can't review your
> own patches) and take a good look at the changes, mentioning any
> questions that you have or problems that you spot. If you think the
> changes look good to be merged, you can tag the issue accordingly.
>
> When issues are tagged as reviewed-looks-good, QA will display them in
> dark green at the top of the list of patches, so it's on those with
> commit access to prioritise looking at these issues and merging the
> patches if indeed they are ready.
>
> Let me know if you have any comments or questions!

This is great, thank you.  

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Tanguy LE CARROUR]

Hi Chris,

First of, thanks (again) for everything that you’ve done with QA!
It looks great!


Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 11:44:11)
> Let me know if you have any comments or questions!

Unfortunately, I have some (stupid) questions!

I decided to give it a try and I picked at random a patch that
was supposed to be an easy one:

```
[bug#68590] gnu: notmuch: update to version 0.38.2
```

It’s mark as "green" *ie* important checks passing, but…
it does not even apply?! Actually, it’s for a good reason:
the exact same patch has been applied 2 weeks ago by
Nicolas Goaziou as #9b65b60b97.

The patch is still open on Debbugs. I guess it should be closed, right?

https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=68590

I guess it got is "green" status on QA before other patch made it to
master.

Can I safely close it?!

Regards.

-- 
Tanguy

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Christopher Baines]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1241 bytes --]


Tanguy LE CARROUR <tanguy@bioneland.org> writes:

> Hi Chris,
>
> First of, thanks (again) for everything that you’ve done with QA!
> It looks great!
>
>
> Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 11:44:11)
>> Let me know if you have any comments or questions!
>
> Unfortunately, I have some (stupid) questions!
>
> I decided to give it a try and I picked at random a patch that
> was supposed to be an easy one:
>
> ```
> [bug#68590] gnu: notmuch: update to version 0.38.2
> ```
>
> It’s mark as "green" *ie* important checks passing, but…
> it does not even apply?! Actually, it’s for a good reason:
> the exact same patch has been applied 2 weeks ago by
> Nicolas Goaziou as #9b65b60b97.
>
> The patch is still open on Debbugs. I guess it should be closed, right?
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=68590
>
> I guess it got is "green" status on QA before other patch made it to
> master.
>
> Can I safely close it?!

Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication
of effort and the original patch got ignored.

It looks like the issue has been closed now.

QA can spot when patches don't apply, but it doesn't test for that
regularly at the moment.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Tanguy LE CARROUR]

Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 14:44:25)
> Tanguy LE CARROUR <tanguy@bioneland.org> writes:
> > Can I safely close it?!
> 
> Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication
> of effort and the original patch got ignored.
> 
> It looks like the issue has been closed now.

Not me! 😁

Regards.

-- 
Tanguy

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Andreas Enge]

Am Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 02:53:59PM +0100 schrieb Tanguy LE CARROUR:
> Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 14:44:25)
> > Tanguy LE CARROUR <tanguy@bioneland.org> writes:
> > > Can I safely close it?!
> > 
> > Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication
> > of effort and the original patch got ignored.
> > 
> > It looks like the issue has been closed now.
> Not me! 😁

As the old German saying goes, "two idiots, one idea" :-)
I also immediately jumped to this easy looking patch, came to the same
conclusion as you and closed it. This is a lot of review work for a patch
where there is nothing to do...

Actually the next patch I tried to apply was also already there, and the
committer had just forgotten to close the issue.

Andreas

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Andreas Enge]

Hello,

I see a few "Failed to process revision", for instance here:
   https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/68778
While I am not sure why, these look like transient (?) build failures,
at least failures not related to the patch in question. What is there to do?

Andreas

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Tanguy LE CARROUR]

Quoting Andreas Enge (2024-02-09 15:30:44)
> Am Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 02:53:59PM +0100 schrieb Tanguy LE CARROUR:
> > Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 14:44:25)
> > > Tanguy LE CARROUR <tanguy@bioneland.org> writes:
> > > > Can I safely close it?!
> > > 
> > > Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication
> > > of effort and the original patch got ignored.
> > > 
> > > It looks like the issue has been closed now.
> > Not me! 😁
> 
> As the old German saying goes, "two idiots, one idea" :-)
> I also immediately jumped to this easy looking patch, came to the same
> conclusion as you and closed it. This is a lot of review work for a patch
> where there is nothing to do...
> 
> Actually the next patch I tried to apply was also already there, and the
> committer had just forgotten to close the issue.

*erf*… people! 😅

I’m "reviewing" `[bug#68997] gnu: lightning: Update to 2.2.3`… please
find another one! 😁

-- 
Tanguy

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Christopher Baines]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 446 bytes --]


Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:

> I see a few "Failed to process revision", for instance here:
>    https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/68778
> While I am not sure why, these look like transient (?) build failures,
> at least failures not related to the patch in question. What is there to do?

Long term it would be nice for Guile to segfault less, in the short term
though sending the patch again will trigger the data service to try
again.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Vivien Kraus]

Dear QA wizards,

Le vendredi 09 février 2024 à 10:44 +0000, Christopher Baines a écrit :
> You just need to not be involved (so you can't review your
> own patches)

I interpret this as it’s OK to review patches if you asked for a change
in the thread, am I correct? Or is this too much involvement?

Best regards,

Vivien

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Vivien Kraus]

Hello Chris,

Le vendredi 09 février 2024 à 10:44 +0000, Christopher Baines a écrit :
> Let me know if you have any comments or questions!

Thank you for all your work on QA.

I can’t help but notice QA is missing a few patches. For instance,
issues.guix.gnu.org lists 7 open issues with patches for gnome-team
(#67623, #67493, #67273, #6648, #68937, #68716, #68911) but if I search
for gnome-team on qa.guix.gnu.org, it only shows 2: #68937 and #68716.
Do you know why the others were lost?

Best regards,

Vivien

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Christopher Baines]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]


Vivien Kraus <vivien@planete-kraus.eu> writes:

> Dear QA wizards,
>
> Le vendredi 09 février 2024 à 10:44 +0000, Christopher Baines a écrit :
>> You just need to not be involved (so you can't review your
>> own patches)
>
> I interpret this as it’s OK to review patches if you asked for a change
> in the thread, am I correct? Or is this too much involvement?

That sounds fine. It's more you shouldn't review your own patches or
someone elses patches where you were significantly involved in the work.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Christopher Baines]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 859 bytes --]


Vivien Kraus <vivien@planete-kraus.eu> writes:

> Hello Chris,
>
> Le vendredi 09 février 2024 à 10:44 +0000, Christopher Baines a écrit :
>> Let me know if you have any comments or questions!
>
> Thank you for all your work on QA.
>
> I can’t help but notice QA is missing a few patches. For instance,
> issues.guix.gnu.org lists 7 open issues with patches for gnome-team
> (#67623, #67493, #67273, #6648, #68937, #68716, #68911) but if I search
> for gnome-team on qa.guix.gnu.org, it only shows 2: #68937 and #68716.
> Do you know why the others were lost?

QA only looks at a fixed number of recent issues (by the time the latest
patches were sent).

This is mostly a disk space and memory limitation on beid which runs
data.qa.guix.gnu.org, so hopefully we can get more resources and
increase the number of issues to look at

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Andreas Enge]

Am Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 04:08:45PM +0100 schrieb Tanguy LE CARROUR:
> I’m "reviewing" `[bug#68997] gnu: lightning: Update to 2.2.3`… please
> find another one! 😁

Now that you jump to complicated and not even yet built by QA packages,
you are safe from my competition :)

Andreas

Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?

[Ian Eure]

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Hey!
>
> After substitute availability taking a bit of a dive recently, 
> the
> bordeaux build farm has finally caught back up and QA is back 
> submitting
> builds for packages changed by patches.
>
> QA also has a feature to allow easily tagging patches (issues) 
> as having
> been reviewed and ready to merge (reviewed-looks-good). You can 
> do this
> via sending an email and QA has a form ("Mark patches as 
> reviewed") on
> the page for each issue to help you do this.
>
> I'd encourage anyone and everyone to review patches, there's no 
> burden
> on you to spot every problem and you don't need any special
> knowledge. You just need to not be involved (so you can't review 
> your
> own patches) and take a good look at the changes, mentioning any
> questions that you have or problems that you spot. If you think 
> the
> changes look good to be merged, you can tag the issue 
> accordingly.
>
> When issues are tagged as reviewed-looks-good, QA will display 
> them in
> dark green at the top of the list of patches, so it's on those 
> with
> commit access to prioritise looking at these issues and merging 
> the
> patches if indeed they are ready.
>
> Let me know if you have any comments or questions!
>

Wanted to check things out, but it’s giving the same error message 
on every page:

    An error occurred

    Sorry about that!
    misc-error

    #fvector->list: expected vector, got ~S#f#f

Also, the certificate for issues.guix.gnu.org expired today.

Is there a plan to improve the reliability Guix infrastructure? 
It seems like major things break with alarming regularity.

  — Ian