Re: #KCIDB engagement report

["Nick Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@google.com>]

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 3:32 AM Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> On 5/24/21 8:38 PM, Nick Desaulniers via groups.io wrote:
>  > Hi Nikolai,
>  > It's nice to see our results getting collected; it looks for a given
>  > tree I can even see the build results of different compilers.
>  >
>  > For example, here's a recent run of mainline:
>  >
> https://kcidb.kernelci.org/d/revision/revision?orgId=1&var-dataset=kernelci04&var-id=c4681547bcce777daf576925a966ffa824edd09d
>  >
>  > One thing we need to be able to quickly triage when we see a build
>  > failure with one toolchain is "is this toolchain specific or not?"  I
>  > figure KCIDB has the data; is there a way to surface the results of
>  > such a query quickly?  If not, that would really help us.
>
> We don't have a ready-made UI for this, but I think I can add a Grafana
> panel/dashboard for that rather quickly. What would be most helpful?

I think so.

For a given tuple of (tree, branch, configuration), it would be neat
to be able to link to a deterministic URL to quickly check who else
may have built this recently, and what was the result.

> How about having a list of "Compilers" below the "Builds" on the page
> you link? Each line in that list could correspond to a unique value of
> the "Compiler" field, and give an aggregated summary of various
> parameters, including build/test results. We can also have a summary per
> architecture, or per "Configuration".
>
> Or maybe something else would help you better?

Hard to imagine, but maybe we can iterate on something?

>
> Nick
>
> On 5/24/21 8:38 PM, Nick Desaulniers via groups.io wrote:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 12:50 AM Nikolai Kondrashov
> > <Nikolai.Kondrashov@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> Below is the monthly report on KCIDB* engagement. It lists various CI systems
> >> and their status of engagement with KCIDB, and once we get to that, will list
> >> developer engagement.
> >>
> >> Lines with updates are marked with "!".
> >>
> >> Not much news this time, as I had to tend to CKI matters, and had a couple
> >> weeks of vacation. I still have to tie some loose CKI ends before I return to
> >> working on a new KCIDB release and reaching developers with e-mail
> >> notifications.
> >>
> >> However, I did try to contact Huawei's Compass CI with an invitation for
> >> cooperation, but got no response so far.
> >>
> >>       KernelCI native
> >>           Sending (a lot of) production build and test results.
> >>           https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/?var-origin=kernelci
> >>
> >>       Red Hat CKI
> >>           Sending production results.
> >>           https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/?var-origin=redhat
> >>
> >>       Google Syzbot
> >>           Sending a subset of production results (failures only).
> >>           https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/?var-origin=syzbot
> >>
> >>       ARM
> >>           Sending production results.
> >>           Full commit hashes are currently not available, are spoofed, and don't
> >>           match the ones reported by others. To be fixed soon.
> >>           https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/?var-origin=arm
> >>
> >>       Sony Fuego
> >>           Internal design in progress.
> >>
> >>       Gentoo GKernelCI
> >>           Sending production results.
> >>           Only builds (a few architectures), no configs, no logs, and no tests
> >>           for now, but working on growing contributions.
> >>           https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/?var-origin=gkernelci
> >>
> >>       Intel 0day
> >>           Initial conversation concluded, general interest expressed,
> >>           no contact since.
> >>
> >>       Linaro
> >>           Sending (a lot of) Tuxsuite build results to "production" KCIDB.
> >>           https://staging.kernelci.org:3000/?var-origin=tuxsuite
> >
> > Hi Nikolai,
> > It's nice to see our results getting collected; it looks for a given
> > tree I can even see the build results of different compilers.
> >
> > For example, here's a recent run of mainline:
> > https://kcidb.kernelci.org/d/revision/revision?orgId=1&var-dataset=kernelci04&var-id=c4681547bcce777daf576925a966ffa824edd09d
> >
> > One thing we need to be able to quickly triage when we see a build
> > failure with one toolchain is "is this toolchain specific or not?"  I
> > figure KCIDB has the data; is there a way to surface the results of
> > such a query quickly?  If not, that would really help us.
> >
> >>
> >>       TuxML
> >>           Initial contact in response to a report.
> >>           There's a plan to approach us and start work in the coming months.
> >>
> >>       Yocto Project
> >>           Initial contact in response to a report.
> >>           Would like to start sending build and test results, particularly for
> >>           older kernels. Would like to separate upstream commits from project
> >>           patches first: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14196
> >>
> >> !   Huawei Compass CI
> >> !       Sent a message to Fengguang Wu, who was presenting it at LVC 2021.
> >> !       No response so far.
> >>
> >> Please respond with corrections or suggestions of other CI systems to contact.
> >>
> >> Nick
> >>
> >> *KCIDB is an effort to unify Linux Kernel CI reporting, maintained by Linux
> >>    Foundation's KernelCI project:
> >>    https://foundation.kernelci.org/blog/2020/08/21/introducing-common-reporting/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>


-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers